MozillaZine

Full Article Attached Linux 1.4 Branch Builds Compiled With GCC 3.2.3

Thursday June 12th, 2003

In a newsgroup posting, Asa Dotzler has announced the availability of 1.4 branch builds for Linux compiled with GCC 3.2.3. These new builds need testing to make sure that the change of compiler has not caused any unexpected bugs. The regular Linux 1.4 branch and trunk builds are currently still compiled using GCC 2.95.3. The GCC 3.2.3 builds can be found in the new latest-1.4-gcc323 directory on ftp.mozilla.org.


#1 What's the Difference?

by peterlairo <Peter@Lairo.com>

Friday June 13th, 2003 1:32 AM

Reply to this message

I'm trying to switch ove to Linux and am interested in learning about the "intricacies" of Linux.

Could someone please explain what the difference is between compiling with GCC 3.2.3 vs GCC 2.95.3 - in terms of mozilla features, speed and/or compatibility or whatever the "difference" may be?

#2 Re: Need help? Do it yourself

by lacostej <coffeebreaks@hotmail.com>

Friday June 13th, 2003 3:42 AM

Reply to this message

learning about the advantages of using a specific compiler are to my point of view not the first thing to know when switching to Linux (or to any OS). I would let that for later. There are so many other differences that will affect you before that.

Basically newer compilers should generate better machine code that runs better on given processors and have (in theory) less bugs. You should then get a little speedup using a new compiler in theory. Of course the results are different if your whole system is compiled with that compiler or not.

In terms of new Mozilla features, there shouldn't be any. The end-user features mozilla provide should (in theory) not depend on the type of compiler used. I didn't read all lines of code to ensure that. In terms of speed, see above. In terms of compatibility, that will depend what your underlying system is running. There have been some compatibilities changes in the ABI since 2.95.x and you will poobably run into trouble running an application compiled under 2.95.x on a 3.2.x system or the other way around. But these problems should be taken care by your distribution (Red Hat, Debian, ...).

If your system is using 3.2.x you can then try uswing those binaries. Red Hat 9 uses 3.2.1. If you have this one, get a go to the mozilla gcc323 binary.

Correct me if I am wrong.

#4 is it tax deductible?

by an_mo

Friday June 13th, 2003 6:50 AM

Reply to this message

I can't believe I am answering this as I don't know anything about it, but if you read the description of this bug <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204236>, you'll see it had to do with licensing issues. This bug was one of the 1.4 blockers.

#6 titles

by an_mo

Friday June 13th, 2003 6:52 AM

Reply to this message

damn, why does mozillazine remembers titles and not only login and password?

#8 Re: titles

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday June 13th, 2003 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

"damn, why does mozillazine remembers titles and not only login and password?"

<http://www.mozillazine.or…le=3273&message=22#22>

Alex

#3 Faster

by jrepin <jlp@holodeck1.com>

Friday June 13th, 2003 4:51 AM

Reply to this message

I tried this on Mandrake 9.1 and it is runing quite a bit faster. So far I haven't run into any problem but I am only using it for a few hours. I hope this becomes the defult compiler as the speedup is very nice.

#5 Re: Faster

by schapel

Friday June 13th, 2003 6:51 AM

Reply to this message

Just wait until they switch from -O to -O2 optimization <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=158385> move to gcc 3.3 <http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.3/changes.html> and optimize for Pentium Pro or Pentium 2 <http://forums.mozillazine…=13331&highlight=PPro> Those changes should make Mozilla on Linux about as fast as on Windows.

#10 Re: Re: Faster

by mesostinky

Friday June 13th, 2003 8:50 AM

Reply to this message

Actually I find Phoenix/Firebird to be as fast if not faster on Linux then in windows.

#13 Re: Re: Re: Faster

by schapel

Friday June 13th, 2003 11:56 AM

Reply to this message

According to the pageload tests at <http://ftp.mozilla.org/pu…times/daily_loadtime.html> and <http://www.mozilla.org/qu…oad/pageload-results.html> Linux builds have been significantly slower than Windows builds for quite some time. Using gcc 3.3, which has major improvements in the optimizer, and using more aggressive optimization such as -O2 should rectify that situation.

#15 Re: Re: Re: Re: Faster

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 13th, 2003 2:15 PM

Reply to this message

Firebird on Linux doesn't use the same compiler or options as Mozilla on Linux so those tests aren't necessarily representative.

--Asa

#12 Re: Faster

by Tar

Friday June 13th, 2003 10:20 AM

Reply to this message

Can prelinking now be used with Mozilla on Linux or did it work with 2.95.3 too?

How much will it help the startup time?

#17 Re: Re: Faster

by bzbarsky

Friday June 13th, 2003 11:46 PM

Reply to this message

The GCC 3.2 builds already use -O2.

#18 Re: Re: Re: Faster

by schapel

Saturday June 14th, 2003 5:59 AM

Reply to this message

That was fast! ;-)

#9 they really did it!

by TheK <kl@3dots.de>

Friday June 13th, 2003 7:32 AM

Reply to this message

unbelivable! I only wonder, why some of the builds are bigger, none are smaller..?!

#19 Re: they really did it!

by shin

Thursday July 24th, 2003 2:21 PM

Reply to this message

When you compile with optimisations such as -O2, the executable's size grows. So you get bigger builds that actually run faster.

By the way: I've always found the size argument to be not so relevant. Everyone nowadays wants a full-featured browser that fits on half a floppy disk...

#20 Re: they really did it!

by shin

Thursday July 24th, 2003 2:22 PM

Reply to this message

When you compile with optimisations such as -O2, the executable's size grows. So you get bigger builds that actually run faster.

By the way: I've always found the size argument to be not so relevant. Everyone nowadays wants a full-featured browser that fits on half a floppy disk...

#11 Doesn't work

by jonik

Friday June 13th, 2003 9:47 AM

Reply to this message

On RH 7.2 and 7.3 based systems:

$ ./mozilla ./mozilla-bin: error while loading shared libraries: libstdc++.so.5: cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory

Oh well, guess I should start planning an update.

#14 Re: Doesn't work

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Friday June 13th, 2003 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

Yep.

Redhat switched to gcc 3.x with Redhat 8.0, thus the change in major version number. Thus things compiled with gcc 3.x cannot be expected to run reliably on Redhat 7.x.

#16 Re: Re: Doesn't work

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Friday June 13th, 2003 2:17 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, that's not correct. We'll be statically linking in libstdc++ with the intent that the final gcc 3.2.3 builds should run on rh 7, 8 and 9. These first builds, however, were dynamically linked so they probably won't start on rh 7.

--Asa

#21 Re: Re: Re: Doesn't work

by clewis <x@functionx.org>

Tuesday June 15th, 2004 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

I'm running on Red Hat 7.3 (inherited this machine; only using it for a short time; wouldn't be worth the effort to upgrade) and am wondering if there is somewhere I can get the statically linked libstdc++, or do I have to build the source myself?