On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:37:53AM -0800, Terry Lambert wrote: > Steve Kargl wrote: > > > Don't worry about it; it's being totally blown out of proportion; > > > there's no way anyone will commit to importing a 2 day old 3.2.1, > > > which is why I put the smiley's there. > > > > Well, the 2-day old 3.2.1 fixes numerous problems > > with our 3.2.1 [FreeBSD] 20021009 (prerelease). > > > > Compiling this > >
[[code elided] > > with "gcc -O2 -c" yields an ICE in FreeBSD-current. > > The 2-day old gcc 3.2.1 does not blow chucks on the > > above code. > > What does it do for all the other code in -ports, and in the > comp.source.* archives, and that anyone else has ever written, > such that you know it doesn't cause more problems than it > solves? FreeBSD 5.0 is scheduled for a 15 Dec 02 release. We have 24 days to find the problems. With the recent spat of problems reported after DP2 was released, I suspect 15 Dec 02 is optimistic. > Supposedly, bringing in 3.2 was going to solve more problems > than it caused. It turns out the 4.x compiler, GCC 2.95.3, > also does not have an ICE as a result of compiling that code. You know the reason why 3.2 pre-release was brought into the tree, right? GCC has changed the C++ ABI between 3.1.1 and 3.2. If FreeBSD 5.0 shipped with 2.95.3, then 5.x would use 2.95.3 until 6.0 was released. Try getting support from the GCC folks for 2.95.3. I respect David's judgement about bringing 3.2.1 into the tree, but your statement above ("totally blown out...") suggests you don't follow GCC development. Several significant bugs were fixed between our pre-release version and 3.2.1. -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message