Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
- Original Message - From: "Gabriel Dos Reis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Boost mailing list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:02 AM Subject: Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Walter) writes: > > [...] > > | > This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by > | > taking users for beta testers ;-) > | > | That's not the whole story. When testing with GCC 3.3.1 prerelease I noticed > | that setting -fabi-version isn't necessary anymore. So I filed a bug report > | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11812, which immediately got > | closed ;-). The subsequent discussion at > | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11105 leads me to believe that > | GCC 3.3 was too conservative w.r.t. ABI compatibility. > | > | Due to this and the fact that there's been another bug in GCC 3.3 > | (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11198) which manifests when > | using ublas, I tend to advise against using GCC 3.3 for ublas. > > GCC-3.3 is GCC-3.3.0 in disguise and I tend to refrain myself from > using .0 releases outside of experimental works :-). > > More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1? Yes, GCC 3.3.1 works OK for me. Thanks, Joerg ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
Beman Dawes wrote: > (I still haven't gotten over Microsoft being the > first compiler to pass 100%. The world takes some strange twists > sometimes.) Well, it's not like this happened by an accident, is it? It's been explicitly stated that they are committed to this goal, and they made it happen. Other vendors haven't been, so no wonder they are lagging behind. IMHO 7.1 folks have done a great service to the C++ community at large, and they deserve a little bit more appreciation. Aleksey ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | At 07:02 PM 8/10/2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | | >More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1? | | I just tested 3.3.1 on Windows, and the 7 ublas tests which had been | failing on 3.3 are now passing. The variant libraries variant_test4 is | also now passing. Good news! [...] | There are only a handful of GCC failures left. Perhaps we can submit | bug reports on any that turn out to be GCC problems, and GCC can join yes, that would be helpful if could submit those bugs. | the 100% pass club with 3.3.2. (I still haven't gotten over Microsoft | being the first compiler to pass 100%. The world takes some strange | twists sometimes.) :-) -- Gaby ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joerg Walter) writes: [...] | > This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by | > taking users for beta testers ;-) | | That's not the whole story. When testing with GCC 3.3.1 prerelease I noticed | that setting -fabi-version isn't necessary anymore. So I filed a bug report | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11812, which immediately got | closed ;-). The subsequent discussion at | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11105 leads me to believe that | GCC 3.3 was too conservative w.r.t. ABI compatibility. | | Due to this and the fact that there's been another bug in GCC 3.3 | (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11198) which manifests when | using ublas, I tend to advise against using GCC 3.3 for ublas. GCC-3.3 is GCC-3.3.0 in disguise and I tend to refrain myself from using .0 releases outside of experimental works :-). More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1? -- Gaby ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Re: ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
At 07:02 PM 8/10/2003, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: >More seriously, did you have a chance to test GCC-3.3.1? I just tested 3.3.1 on Windows, and the 7 ublas tests which had been failing on 3.3 are now passing. The variant libraries variant_test4 is also now passing. The current plan is to use 3.3.1 as one of our release criteria compilers for Boost 1.31.0, so we will try to account for each remaining GCC 3.3.1 failure. There are only a handful of GCC failures left. Perhaps we can submit bug reports on any that turn out to be GCC problems, and GCC can join the 100% pass club with 3.3.2. (I still haven't gotten over Microsoft being the first compiler to pass 100%. The world takes some strange twists sometimes.) --Beman ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
ublas and gcc (was: Re: [boost] Re: Compiler status for GCC 3.3)
Hi Gabriel, you wrote: > | >>> On the other hand if your native compiler is GCC and your system was > | >>> not configured with that setting, then you may get into trouble -- > | >>> since you'll be mixing translation units with different ABIs. > | >> > | >> Furthermore, that sounds like a workaround. Isn't it still a > | >> compiler bug that it doesn't work without -fabi-version=0? > | > > | >No, it's correctly fixed, but since it's a fix that breaks ABI, the > | >version number was bumbed. By default, GCC 3.3 uses the GCC 3.2 ABI. > | >If you want to > | >activate the new version, you have to explicitally say so. > | >"-fabi-version=0" always selects the last version of the ABI. > | > | So are you are saying we should add "-fabi-version=0"? > > If you do that unconditionally, you may get ABI incompatible > libraries/programs compared to what your system come with. > > The default ABI version for GCC-3.3.x is 1. You might want to set it > to 2 and see what happens (for GCC-3.3.x) -- some bugs are fixed in > -fabi-version=2. > > > This whole thing (-fabi-version) is messy. It is what one gets by > taking users for beta testers ;-) That's not the whole story. When testing with GCC 3.3.1 prerelease I noticed that setting -fabi-version isn't necessary anymore. So I filed a bug report http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11812, which immediately got closed ;-). The subsequent discussion at http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11105 leads me to believe that GCC 3.3 was too conservative w.r.t. ABI compatibility. Due to this and the fact that there's been another bug in GCC 3.3 (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11198) which manifests when using ublas, I tend to advise against using GCC 3.3 for ublas. Thanks, Joerg ___ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
