The reason I'm doing this is that I want to understand why the total
size of the binaries grew from around 10MB (gcc v 4.5) to over 70MB in
4.9
I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2
The reason I'm doing this is that I want to understand why the total
size of the binaries grew from around 10MB (gcc v 4.5) to over 70MB in
4.9
I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest:
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1
-rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 1.2
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 1:36 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2014, Ian Grant wrote:
>
>> And is there any way to disable the Intel library?
> --disable-libcilkrts (same as the other libs)
> If it explicitly doesn't support your system, I am a bit surpri
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Marc Glisse wrote:
>>> Please don't call it "the Intel library", that doesn't mean anything.
>> Doesn't it? How did you know what 'it' was then? Or is that a stupid
>> question? This identity concept is much slipperier than it seems at
>> first, isn't it?
> You in
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Ian Grant wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
>> > The reason I'm doing this is that I want to understand why the total
>> > s
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
>> I can compile the first stage OK, and the binaries are quite modest:
>>
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 ian ian 17.2M Sep 6 03:47 prev-gcc/cc1
>> -rwxr-xr-x 1 i
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 18 September 2014 23:46, Ian Grant wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 01:26:48PM -0400, Ian Grant wrote:
>>>> I can compile the first stage OK, and
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 18 September 2014 23:46, Ian Grant wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Tobias Ulmer wrote:
> Have you compared the binaries using size(1) instead of ls(1)?
Actually, when I look at the output of size I realise
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>> ian3@jaguar:~/usr/libexec/gcc$ size i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.0/{cc1,f951}
>>text databssdechexfilename
>> 14965183 23708 74494415733835 f0144b
>> i686-pc-linux-gnu/4.9.0/cc1
>> 15882830
In case it isn't obvious, what I am interested in is how easily we can
know the problem of infeasibly large binaries isn't an instance of
this one:
http://livelogic.blogspot.com/2014/08/beware-insiduous-penetrator-my-son.html
Ian
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
> (delurking)
> Ah, this is commonly called the Thompson hack, since Ken Thompson
> actually produced a successful demo:
How do you know Thompson's attempt was the first instance? The
document I refer to in the blog is the "Unknown Air Force Repor
On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:35 PM, Thomas Preud'homme
wrote:
>> From: gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org [mailto:gcc-ow...@gcc.gnu.org] On Behalf Of
>> Ian Grant
>>
>> And can anyone tell me what are the 'non-vanilla' sources?
>
> "Vanilla source" ref
ible in a very
crude form. By the end of the period I knew that the design of
sophisticated digital systems was the perfect field of activity for
the Mathematical Engineer."
[1] Edsger W. Dijkstra. EWD1303
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/transcriptions/EWD13xx/EWD1303
e:
>> On 19 September 2014 16:21, Ian Grant wrote:
>>> Thanks. But I asked what the non-vanilla sources were. I know what
>>> the vanilla sources are, because I'm using them!
>>
>> The non-vanilla sources are everything else. That should be pretty obvious.
&g
whole lot, does it?
Thanks again for your helpful response. This is progress.
Ian
On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Ian Grant
> wrote:
>> None of this is useful to me. I'm trying to make a case for why people
>> sho
The following is a response to what some may think an implausible
suggestion made here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-devel/2014-09/msg00124.html
The suggestion is that the system of education has been subverted so
that there are "unknown" physical laws which give "the unseen enemy"
Dear programming language types,
I wrote this to try once again to explain what is the nature of the
problem that one would have in verifying the integrity of _any_
software toolchain, whether it is aimed ultimately at the production
of other software, or of hardware.
http://livelogic.blogspo
17 matches
Mail list logo
