Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns? Have any concerns been raised on the GCC mailing list? I've googled and found only anecdotal positive reports: http://www.listware.net/201003/gcc-gcc/99756-gmp-501-and-gcc-45.html Is there a GCC autobuilder suite that can do all these rebuilds? I will upload there. I don't have such a setup. OK, but someone must have a similar setup. People are occasionally rebuilding the archive to test new GCC versions. Anyone on the debian-gcc list got an idea? does gcc still work when gmp5 is in the archive, and mpfr is not yet rebuilt against the new gmp5? Sure: I've been running that way at home for a year. Why wouldn't it work? Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your concerns in detail so that we could address them. Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns? Have any concerns been raised on the GCC mailing list? I've googled and found only anecdotal positive reports: http://www.listware.net/201003/gcc-gcc/99756-gmp-501-and-gcc-45.html Is there a GCC autobuilder suite that can do all these rebuilds? I will upload there. I don't have such a setup. OK, but someone must have a similar setup. People are occasionally rebuilding the archive to test new GCC versions. Anyone on the debian-gcc list got an idea? does gcc still work when gmp5 is in the archive, and mpfr is not yet rebuilt against the new gmp5? Sure: I've been running that way at home for a year. Why wouldn't it work? I didn't ask about your *home*, but the *archive* (and the buildds). Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your concerns in detail so that we could address them. what is cryptic about the question? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d69341e.4060...@debian.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
Dear Matthias, On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your concerns in detail so that we could address them. what is cryptic about the question? Thanks for your input. However, I don't find this conversation productive any longer. Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Matthias asks: did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while re-building mpfr and mpclib with the new gmp? What I have done is upload gmp to the experimental autobuilders. The GMP package build runs a comprehensive test suite that is passing on all the architectures available to the experimental autobuilders. This gives me some comfort that the code is reasonably sound. In addition, the fact that GMP 5 has been out for over a year gives me some reason to believe that upstream sources have been adapted to change in API. Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns? Is there a GCC autobuilder suite that can do all these rebuilds? I will upload there. However, to ask me to manually try all combinations of architecture and GCC version is setting the bar too high, IMHO. I don't have such a setup. You should check that GCC continues to work with the new package, and doesn't show regressions, comparing with the test-summary.gz of an existing run. It's a bit hard to build things without a compiler. Note that we had exactly this scenario with an earlier PPL upload (or was it mpclib)? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d67c358.1010...@debian.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns? Have any concerns been raised on the GCC mailing list? I've googled and found only anecdotal positive reports: http://www.listware.net/201003/gcc-gcc/99756-gmp-501-and-gcc-45.html Is there a GCC autobuilder suite that can do all these rebuilds? I will upload there. I don't have such a setup. OK, but someone must have a similar setup. People are occasionally rebuilding the archive to test new GCC versions. Anyone on the debian-gcc list got an idea? -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required for reverse-dependencies, or just rebuilds? (I say just as there appear to be around 350 r-dependencies, including at least five from the GCC suite). I haven't done any test-builds. Since the -dev package changed name, I presume that just rebuild won't work; rather, the sources have to edit their build-deps. Out of interest, why is the -dev package versioned? [...] Matthias also responded requesting: I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5. Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5? Then both gmp versions will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to gmp5 at their leisure. After some further investigation, it looks like this isn't feasible. Neither gmp 4.3.2 nor 5.0.1 version their symbols and with both versions in the archive simultaneously and co-installable, there's a reasonable risk of a process ending up with both libraries loaded in to its address space, which is generally not a good idea. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1298578544.22974.292.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] Matthias also responded requesting: I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5. Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5? Then both gmp versions will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to gmp5 at their leisure. After some further investigation, it looks like this isn't feasible. Neither gmp 4.3.2 nor 5.0.1 version their symbols and with both versions in the archive simultaneously and co-installable, there's a reasonable risk of a process ending up with both libraries loaded in to its address space, which is generally not a good idea. did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while re-building mpfr and mpclib with the new gmp? Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d66ca6f.3010...@debian.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 22:15 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote: [...] Matthias also responded requesting: I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5. Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5? Then both gmp versions will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to gmp5 at their leisure. After some further investigation, it looks like this isn't feasible. Neither gmp 4.3.2 nor 5.0.1 version their symbols and with both versions in the archive simultaneously and co-installable, there's a reasonable risk of a process ending up with both libraries loaded in to its address space, which is generally not a good idea. did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while re-building mpfr and mpclib with the new gmp? Steve's mail to this thread less than a week ago said he hadn't done any test rebuilds at all; I suspect the chances that he's gone on to build and test multiple GCC versions on multiple architectures in the meantime are small. Regards, Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1298582383.22974.489.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote: Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required for reverse-dependencies, or just rebuilds? (I say just as there appear to be around 350 r-dependencies, including at least five from the GCC suite). I haven't done any test-builds. Since the -dev package changed name, I presume that just rebuild won't work; rather, the sources have to edit their build-deps. Out of interest, why is the -dev package versioned? I don't recall. I believe it has been versioned since before I took over maintenance. Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5? Then both gmp versions will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to gmp5 at their leisure. After some further investigation, it looks like this isn't feasible. Neither gmp 4.3.2 nor 5.0.1 version their symbols and with both versions in the archive simultaneously and co-installable, there's a reasonable risk of a process ending up with both libraries loaded in to its address space, which is generally not a good idea. OK. So with the recent change for ia64, the experimental build shows no failures though 3 arches haven't been built (alpha, hppa, mips). You previously said hppa doesn't have an autobuilder for experimental. I believe the other two did build the previous version, but I can no longer find the buildd page that shows all the build log history so I can't verify that. Matthias asks: did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while re-building mpfr and mpclib with the new gmp? What I have done is upload gmp to the experimental autobuilders. The GMP package build runs a comprehensive test suite that is passing on all the architectures available to the experimental autobuilders. This gives me some comfort that the code is reasonably sound. In addition, the fact that GMP 5 has been out for over a year gives me some reason to believe that upstream sources have been adapted to change in API. Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns? Is there a GCC autobuilder suite that can do all these rebuilds? I will upload there. However, to ask me to manually try all combinations of architecture and GCC version is setting the bar too high, IMHO. So: what is the next step? Thanks, -Steve signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Looking at the package names of the unstable and experimental versions,
it looks like the main change is libgmp3c2 to libgmp3? (There is also
lib{32,64}gmp3 - lib{32,64}gmp10, but those libraries appear to only be
used by gmp itself).
All the binary packages changed name:
libgmp3c2 -- libgmp10
libgmp3-dev -- libgmp10-dev
lib32gmp3 -- lib32gmp10
lib64gmp3 -- lib64gmp10
... etc ...
except the C++ bindings libgmpxx4ldbl (and its 32-bit 64-bit
variants).
In addition, I had to introduce libmp3, lib{32,64}mp3 because the mp
libraries SOVERSION remained at 3. However, upstream subsequently
indicated these are fairly archaic [1] so I might just remove this
before uploading to unstable.
[1] http://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-devel/2010-November/001669.html
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required
for reverse-dependencies, or just rebuilds? (I say just as there
appear to be around 350 r-dependencies, including at least five from the
GCC suite).
I haven't done any test-builds. Since the -dev package changed name,
I presume that just rebuild won't work; rather, the sources have
to edit their build-deps.
Main question: should I go ahead and upload the new version when
I get a free moment or do we need more investigation?
At the very least I'd first like to confirm that the suggested change
for ia64 works (rebuilding on the other architectures wouldn't hurt
either)
I have uploaded gmp 5.0.1+dfsg-4 with ia64 compiling using -O2 and it
built, so this is confirmed.
and better understand the scope of the changes, particularly in
relation to e.g. gcc.
Matthias also responded requesting:
I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such
that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5.
Shall I go ahead and upload the source gmp5? Then both gmp versions
will co-exist in the repository and packages can choose to move to
gmp5 at their leisure.
The -dev packages necessarily conflict. In addition, the C++ bindings
package libgmpxx4ldbl did not change SOVERSION so any package that
depends on libgmpxx4ldbl alone without depending on libgmp3 or
libgmp10 could possibly be compiled against libgmp3 and run with
libgmp10, or vice-versa. I'm not sure if that's a real problem or
not, but it seems potentially dangerous. What would you suggest?
Thanks,
-Steve
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On 06.02.2011 19:39, Steve M. Robbins wrote: Hi, Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough. I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd appreciate some guidance from the gcc team as well, since this is a major version change. I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such that gmp3 is still available in unstable after the upload of gmp5. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d593ead.2080...@debian.org
Re: GMP transition: 4.3.2 to 5.0.1?
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
Looking at the package names of the unstable and experimental versions,
it looks like the main change is libgmp3c2 to libgmp3? (There is also
lib{32,64}gmp3 - lib{32,64}gmp10, but those libraries appear to only be
used by gmp itself).
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd appreciate some guidance
from the gcc team as well, since this is a major version change.
I uploaded GMP 5 to experimental last year and it builds fine with two
exceptions: hppa is BD-Uninstallable (?) and ia64 fails to build with
an ICE. The underlying cause is already known [1] and from reading
the bug report I suspect I may be able to work around this by building
one file with -O2 rather than -O3. Other suggestions welcome.
hppa is in Needs-Build, not BD-Uninstallable; that's expected because
hppa doesn't have any autobuilders for experimental.
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required
for reverse-dependencies, or just rebuilds? (I say just as there
appear to be around 350 r-dependencies, including at least five from the
GCC suite).
Main question: should I go ahead and upload the new version when
I get a free moment or do we need more investigation?
At the very least I'd first like to confirm that the suggested change
for ia64 works (rebuilding on the other architectures wouldn't hurt
either) and better understand the scope of the changes, particularly in
relation to e.g. gcc.
Regards,
Adam
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive:
http://lists.debian.org/1297517979.27877.2727.ca...@hathi.jungle.funky-badger.org
