headers
O. Hartmann | 1 Feb 2009 01:39
Picon
Picon

Re: Xorg upgrade desaster: Xlib: extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".

Mel wrote:
> On Friday 30 January 2009 13:19:41 O. Hartmann wrote:
>   
>> After upgrading one of my FreeBSD 8.0-CUR/amd64 boxes to new xorg-7.4
>> and having done hurting recompiling nearly everything/package twice now
>> firefox3 still doesn't work properly and hits me when starting with this
>> error message:
>>
>> Xlib:  extension "Generic Event Extension" missing on display ":0.0".
>>
>> Then firefox3 freezes forever, showing something like the background or
>> pixel remnants of windows/picograms moving over its window.
>>     
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2008-October/039134.html
>
>   
Well, that doesn't help very much. As R. Noland wrote, the error coming
up isn't of any harm.

I still have Firefox3 not working on a FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT/AMD64 UP box,
running the most recent FreeBSD 8.0-CURRENT and having now recompiled
three time EVERYTHING, Firefox3 inclusive. Firefox3 is still stuck when
it comes to pulldown menus or requester for download destination, eating
up 100% CPU time and slowing down the box incredible. I pretty sure I
have all the stuff of the X11 suite in the right place and the right
revision number, as I said, I recompiled everything three times and I
did several attempts upgrading the whole Xorg since sunday last week.
Also a deletion of the ports has been performed and then reinstalled. I
can not asure that there is any zomby-library out there disturbing the
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 22 comments |
headers
bf | 1 Feb 2009 01:29
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)


--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip <at> tutopia.com> wrote:

> From: Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip <at> tutopia.com>
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)
> To: "Mark Linimon" <linimon <at> lonesome.com>, bf2006a <at> yahoo.com
> Cc: freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org, "Sean Cavanaugh" <Millenia2000 <at> hotmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 6:22 PM
> --- On Sat, 1/31/09, Mark Linimon
> <linimon <at> lonesome.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 01:08:54PM -0800, Pedro F. Giffuni
> wrote:
> > > The effort didn't go far enough. Why
> haven't we removed GNU readline ?
> >
> > Probably either because someone hasn't written a
> BSD-licensed one, or
> > someone hasn't done the work to test-compile src
> and ports on all the
> > appropriate architectures.
> 
> Wrong on both:
> 
> - libedit has a readline compatibility mode that has
> replaced GNU readline in the other BSDs.
> - If you look in the archives you will find patches.
> 
> If there really was any effort to remove GPL'd stuff
> from the tree it missed this big time: GNU readline is a
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Maxim Sobolev | 1 Feb 2009 01:49
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> if FreeBSD moves to a GPL3'd toolchain without an extremely compelling reason then I would consider a move
to another OS.

This would be a big loss for the Project, I have no doubt about that! :)

-Maxim
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David O'Brien | 1 Feb 2009 03:23
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 06:20:33PM +0100, Michel Talon wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:21:00AM -0500, Kevin Wilcox wrote:
> > 2009/1/14 Michel Talon <talon <at> lpthe.jussieu.fr>:
> > > Apparently the FreeBSD project doesn't want to include any GPL V3
> > > because there are industrial partners who have banned the GPl V3,
> > > out of purely ideological position, without any rational basis. I
> > > wonder why the FreeBSD project has any reason to follow them.
> > 
> > If you make the claim that banning GPL v3 is being done by commercial
> > entities that rely on FreeBSD (and other BSD licensed code) for
> > reasons that are purely ideological and have no rational basis then
> > you either do not fully understand the significance of GPL v3 versus
> > GPL v2, you haven't sufficiently worked with a commercial entity with
> > regards to GPL/LGPL/BSD code that you (or others) have licensed to
> > them or you are just trying to troll the FreeBSD community. I would
> > wager the first two are the case here?
> 
> Yes, i make the claim that, as far as the compiler tool chain is considered,
> there is no difference between GPL V2 and GPL V3 because both licences
> make no restriction on the software compiled with the tool chain.

Incorrect.  The read of our lawyers at $WORK is that there are open
questions on the libstdc++ and other GCC libs in the GPLv3 versions.

[This was pre-'GCC RUNTIME LIBRARY EXCEPTION' (Version 3, 27 January
2009)]

So yes, there companies that are concerned about this for non-ideological
reasons.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David O'Brien | 1 Feb 2009 03:51
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 01:38:56PM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote:
>    If gcc 4.2 && buildtools 2.15 is the end of the road for what BSD is 
> able to include under GPL V2.

GCC 4.2.1, Binutils 2.17, GDB 6.6 are the end of the GPLv2 line.

We are already at GCC 4.2.1.  I am working on moving us to Binutils 2.17.
There is also an effort to move us to GDB 6.5 (not 6.6 because there is
existing work we can leverage; we could then move to 6.6).

> Can we draw a line under it and continue to 
> include it as buildable with the world if a configure option like
> "option BUILDGCC42" is in the kernel config file?

We have customizations to GCC that have not been accepted back into the
stock GCC (not that I haven't tried for years).  We use these options in
the kernel build.

As the person that upgraded us to many new GCC versions, the usual major
motivation for me was userland apps (my own and those in /usr/ports),
not /usr/src.  Though the benefit to /usr/src was also a motivation for
me.

Given there isn't a new C standard being worked on post C99 (only
addendums), I think we have a suitable compiler for /usr/src.
Yes we know of some bugs, but we've disabled the options tickle them.

Given it is harder and harder to BSDize GCC as it grows more tentacles
and run-time requirements; I think we should consider a normal FreeBSD
installation as having a system compiler and a general purpose
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David O'Brien | 1 Feb 2009 03:59
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:46:29AM -0000, Pegasus Mc Cleaft wrote:
>    In my, probably ill informed opinnion, the problem we are facing is not 
> a C compiler problem, its an assembler problem. We can install a better C 
> compiler of our choice through the ports, but its the base assembler & 
> linker that lets us down because it dosent know about modern CPU opcodes 
> and registers (IE: SSE4.x).
..
> gcc43 is fairly painless through the ports, but this is of limited use as 
> it will use the base assembler, linker, et al. Even if you install, as I 
> have, the latest binutils from GNU, it will locate /usr/bin/as before 
> /usr/local/bin/as. If you set all the enviroment varables (AR, AS, NM, ...) 
> before you do the build, you run into other problems with finding the 
> bootstrap files later due to the naming problems between 
> "x86_64-obrien-freebsd" and the auto-generated "x86_64-unknown-freebsd8.0" 
> from the GNU configure. In short, I found upgrading the dev-chain a real 
> nightmare.

Its not that bad.  I've created several cross toolchains in the past.
For those you specify which 'as' and 'ld' to use - how else do you think
they work.  I don't think you configured your GCC properly if you cannot
get it to use some binutils from /usr/ports.

In fact when installing GCC on Solaris GCC strongly prefers (or use to)
gas and gld to Sun's as and ld.  Just tweak that configure logic.

--

-- 
-- David  (obrien <at> FreeBSD.org)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Beach Geek | 1 Feb 2009 03:31
Picon

Re: ath cannot find my wireless network

--

-- 
Looking at the "ifconfig" output, wpi is using the 11g (2.4) band, and
ath is using the 11a (5.8) band.
Your AP is 11g?

Note: Posting from the command line thru GMail. I apologize if quoted
text was not included. (I'm a little rusty)

LA Beach Geek
labeachgeek <at> gmail.com
* The boundaries of reality are the limits of imagination.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
bf | 1 Feb 2009 03:21
Picon
Favicon

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)


--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip <at> tutopia.com> wrote:

> From: Pedro F. Giffuni <giffunip <at> tutopia.com>
> Subject: Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)
> To: "Mark Linimon" <linimon <at> lonesome.com>, bf2006a <at> yahoo.com
> Cc: current <at> FreeBSD.org, "Sean Cavanaugh" <Millenia2000 <at> hotmail.com>
> Date: Saturday, January 31, 2009, 8:32 PM
> --- On Sat, 1/31/09, bf <bf2006a <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
> 
> > The license is _a_ consideration, but not the _only_
> consideration
> > for including some useful code.  I don't know much
> about the
> > readline case, but it was my impression that libedit
> was considered
> > and then rejected, ...
> 
> Nope, you don't know much about the readline case. Dig
> the patches if you like, but I don't see how updating
> them will change things. It was not done simply because no
> one saw much value in doing it, just like there isn't

Let us assume that you are correct.  If no one else saw much value in
doing it, and you don't think it's worth the effort, then what _are_
you complaining about?

> much value into adding license complexity to our base
> compiler for some theoretical (5% was it?) improvements.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pedro F. Giffuni | 1 Feb 2009 02:02

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it become standard compiler?)


--- On Sat, 1/31/09, Maxim Sobolev <sobomax <at> FreeBSD.org> wrote:
...

> Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> > if FreeBSD moves to a GPL3'd toolchain without an extremely compelling
> > reason then I would consider a move to another OS.

> This would be a big loss for the Project, I have no doubt about that! :)

I know my 428 Problem Reports in GNATS might have been bothering to some of you all the way from 1996 but ...
give me a break ;-)

Pedro.

      
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Pedro F. Giffuni | 1 Feb 2009 02:32

Re: Alternatives to gcc (was Re: gcc 4.3: when will it becomestandard compiler?)

--- On Sat, 1/31/09, bf <bf2006a <at> yahoo.com> wrote:
...

> The license is _a_ consideration, but not the _only_ consideration
> for including some useful code.  I don't know much about the
> readline case, but it was my impression that libedit was considered
> and then rejected, ...

Nope, you don't know much about the readline case. Dig the patches if you like, but I don't see how updating
them will change things. It was not done simply because no one saw much value in doing it, just like there
isn't much value into adding license complexity to our base compiler for some theoretical (5% was it?) improvements.

> Because it has a large number of bugfixes and improvements over gcc
> 4.2.x. Read the changelogs for examples.

Even with these "evident" bugfixes and improvements the situation is pretty lame. The growing complexity
of the gcc codebase is one of the reasons why the other BSDs are forking pcc.

I certainly have great respect for the tough work that gerald <at>  puts into this but I have no interest in
becoming a gcc guru. We do lack some serious compiler/toolchain gurus and I'm sure the llvm/pcc
developers welcome patches too.

Pedro.

      
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current <at> freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe <at> freebsd.org"
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane