Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/26/11 10:31 PM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 2011/6/26 C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: Do any of your patches fix these and if so which one(s)? Do you have reduced test cases or which test suite? Yes, the vast majority of the patches are about C++2003 conformance. C++VS - Perennial C++ Validation Suite (CPPVS) http://www.peren.com/pages/cppvs_set.htm Yes we do have reduced test cases for the violations, but we cannot publish them because Perennial CPPVS must be licensed. PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Thanks
Re: STDCXX fork
2011/6/26 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com: PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Great, then PathScale can run the Perennial C++ validation tests on PathScale's recently published stdcxx fork. I looked at the github code published by PathScale and it is obvious to me that it has not been validated against *any* C++2003 validation test harness. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/27/11 01:17 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: 2011/6/26 C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com: PathScale has a Perennial license and feel free to privately email which issues the patches specifically fix. Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary. Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes. Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennial test. (If in fact you've ran them at all)
Re: STDCXX fork
2011/6/27 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com: Your false statements are annoying and unnecessary. I deeply regret that I am annoying you. Please don't avoid the question as I'm trying to help review your changes. Either publicly or privately email which patch fixes which Perennial test. (If in fact you've ran them at all) Quite frankly, I really don't need your help in reviewing my patches. They've already been reviewed. My current job description does not require me to help you run the Perennial validation tests, or to provide you with any information about the Perennial test results. As a matter of fact, I don't even have to provide you with patches at all. I am doing this as a courtesy: you stated that you wanted to look at the Solaris patches. You work for a compiler writer, and you stated you have a Perennial license. You should, therefore, be able to run the Perennial tests yourself. I stand by my previous statement: you have not validated the github fork of stdcxx against any validation test harness. Had you done so, several tests would/should have failed. Had you corrected the stdcxx code causing these failures (which you have not, I have verified that the violations are still there), several tests from the apache stdcxx test harness would have failed, and these tests would have required patches too. I do not see the necessary code changes, and I can tell all this by looking at the PathScale stdcxx fork code. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/26/11 11:23 AM, Stefan Teleman wrote: On 2011/6/17 C. Bergströmcbergst...@pathscale.com wrote: I hope we can also take a look at the Solaris and Windows patches :) You can svn co all the stdcxx Solaris patches from here: http://kdesolaris-svn.cvsdude.com/trunk/STDCXX/4.2.1/ The patches can be found in the Solaris/diffs/ directory. The shell script to apply the patches is Solaris/apply_patches.sh The patches are based on the stdcxx 4.2.1 release. Anonymous svn should work. If it doesn't work for you please let me know, it only means something is messed up. Some of the patches are very Solaris and/or Studio C++ specific (the sunpro.config patches, the GNUmakefile* patches and the patches for the Standard C Library forwarding header files (cstdio, cstdlib, cstring, clocale, etc ...). I will start submitting patches here (at Apache) soon. The last time we checked the patches they caused some boost regressions so please make sure to run the boost test suite. Our compiler runs on Solaris and which patches are platform, but not compiler specific? Thanks
Re: STDCXX fork
2011/6/26 C. Bergström cbergst...@pathscale.com: The last time we checked the patches they caused some boost regressions so please make sure to run the boost test suite. We don't run the Boost tests to validate the 2003 C++ Standard. We run the 2003 C++ Standard validation tests. If strict conformance to the 2003 C++ Standard causes problems with Boost, then that's a Boost problem and not a stdcxx problem. There were indeed numerous deviations from the 2003 C++ Standard in the original stdcxx implementation. --Stefan -- Stefan Teleman KDE e.V. stefan.tele...@gmail.com
RE: STDCXX fork
Hi all Hi, 1) better cmake build system (Actually this has nothing to do with Apache or the current build system.) 2) Faster code review, QA and easier contribution process (Only the last part is slowed down by Apache) 3) Actively maintained (To start just bug fixes, better support for Win/ARM/Solaris and performance improvements[2]. If we get enough interest we'll start on C++0x) We have some armcc porting patches against 5.2.1 (or trunk), would you be able to try to include them in your big merge? They are basically build system amendments to cross compile stdcxx with our compiler and make it work with our run time. Obviously if the build system is going to change, I would need to spend some time porting them to cmake (hopefully it will be straight forward), so let me know WDYT. Note: The cmake based build system isn't in the tree now and should merge mid/late next week. Great. If you're interested https://github.com/pathscale/stdcxx/ Already cloned. If you have outstanding patches please clone and send a pull request. We're going to work hard to get all the backlog of stuff reviewed and integrated. Will do. Thanks! ./C Wojciech -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you.
Re: STDCXX fork
On 06/17/11 09:54 PM, Wojciech Meyer wrote: Hi all Hi, 1) better cmake build system (Actually this has nothing to do with Apache or the current build system.) 2) Faster code review, QA and easier contribution process (Only the last part is slowed down by Apache) 3) Actively maintained (To start just bug fixes, better support for Win/ARM/Solaris and performance improvements[2]. If we get enough interest we'll start on C++0x) We have some armcc porting patches against 5.2.1 (or trunk), would you be able to try to include them in your big merge? They are basically build system amendments to cross compile stdcxx with our compiler and make it work with our run time. Obviously if the build system is going to change, I would need to spend some time porting them to cmake (hopefully it will be straight forward), so let me know WDYT. Anything not build related please send me a pull request on. We have a cross compile build system for our compiler, but I'm not sure how easy it will be to pull that out just for STDCXX. When the engineer who owns this code is back from holiday we'll get it sorted out. I hope we can also take a look at the Solaris and Windows patches :) ./C
STDCXX fork
Hi all PathScale has been maintaining our internal branch of STDCXX for a while now and recently it's gone open source (along with a few other things[1]) Having it hosted at Apache seems to have created some barriers we're hoping to resolve. 1) better cmake build system (Actually this has nothing to do with Apache or the current build system.) 2) Faster code review, QA and easier contribution process (Only the last part is slowed down by Apache) 3) Actively maintained (To start just bug fixes, better support for Win/ARM/Solaris and performance improvements[2]. If we get enough interest we'll start on C++0x) Note: The cmake based build system isn't in the tree now and should merge mid/late next week. If you're interested https://github.com/pathscale/stdcxx/ If you have outstanding patches please clone and send a pull request. We're going to work hard to get all the backlog of stuff reviewed and integrated. ./C @CTOPathScale [1] http://www.pathscale.com/ekopath4-open-source-announcement [2] There's been a number of reported issues where just swapping out the STL between GNU and STDCXX resolves performance issues
