Re: world broken with a gcc 3.2 world? (resolution)
On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:27:56 +0200 Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I get ---snip--- /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11741:71: warning: multi-line string litera ls are deprecated /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11743:26: missing terminating ' character /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12095:28: missing terminating ' character /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12190:7: missing terminating ' character /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12475:58: macro ASM_OUTPUT_INTERNAL_LABEL passed 5 arguments, but takes just 3 /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12756:2: #else without #if /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12761:2: #endif without #if /big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12764:2: #endif without #if mkdep: compile failed *** Error code 1 ---snip--- My local CVS repository was broken. Bye, Alexander. -- One world, one web, one program -- Microsoft promotional ad Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuehrer -- Adolf Hitler http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7 ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
world broken with a gcc 3.2 world?
Hi,
with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I
get
---snip---
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11741:71: warning: multi-line string litera
ls are deprecated
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11743:26: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12095:28: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12190:7: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12475:58: macro ASM_OUTPUT_INTERNAL_LABEL
passed 5 arguments, but takes just 3
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12756:2: #else without #if
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12761:2: #endif without #if
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:12764:2: #endif without #if
mkdep: compile failed
*** Error code 1
---snip---
It complains about:
---snip---
else
{
body block of an inline function, we must *NOT* output any DIE for
this block because we have already output a DIE to represent the whole
inlined function scope and the body block of any function doesn't
really represent a different scope according to ANSI C rules. So we
check here to make sure that this block does not represent a body
block inlining before trying to set the MUST_OUTPUT_DIE flag. */
`must_output_die' flag. */
---snip---
which is obviously correct to complain about. cvs stat tells me:
---snip---
File: dwarf2out.c Status: Up-to-date
Working revision:1.1.1.9 Wed Jul 30 15:24:40 2003
Repository revision: 1.1.1.9 /big/FreeBSD-CVS/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c,v
Sticky Tag: (none)
Sticky Date: (none)
Sticky Options: (none)
---snip---
Any hints?
Bye,
Alexander.
--
Where do you think you're going today?
http://www.Leidinger.net Alexander @ Leidinger.net
GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91 3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: GCC 3.2 patch
Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Hi everyone, | | I've collected a number of patches for several problems with | GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far. | While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be | incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch | file available at http://people.freebsd.org/~kan/gcc-all.diff. | | People having problems compiling their problems with the new | system compiler are encouraged to give this patch a try and | let me know if their problem is fixed ot not. | | -- Alexander Kabaev | | To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] | with unsubscribe freebsd-ports in the body of the message -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2 patch
Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]: | Hi everyone, | | I've collected a number of patches for several problems with | GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far. | While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be | incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch | file available at http://people.freebsd.org/~kan/gcc-all.diff. | | People having problems compiling their problems with the new | system compiler are encouraged to give this patch a try and | let me know if their problem is fixed ot not. | | -- Alexander, It did fix my problem. I did a cvsup and buildworld this morning over yesterday afternoon's application and build. It didn't even dawn on me until your email. I reapplied the patch and now it is fine. Thanks. I'll do more testing tomorrow but I'm sure it will solve some of my problems with port rebuilding. ed To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
GCC 3.2 patch
Hi everyone, I've collected a number of patches for several problems with GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far. While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch file available at http://people.freebsd.org/~kan/gcc-all.diff. People having problems compiling their problems with the new system compiler are encouraged to give this patch a try and let me know if their problem is fixed ot not. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2 patch
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:53:18PM -0700, Alexander Kabaev wrote: Hi everyone, I've collected a number of patches for several problems with GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far. While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch file available at http://people.freebsd.org/~kan/gcc-all.diff. People having problems compiling their problems with the new system compiler are encouraged to give this patch a try and let me know if their problem is fixed ot not. I'll test this on bento ASAP. Thanks! Kris msg42705/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. It doesn't here. I've used my own meta-port to install all the usual stuff I want to have around, yesterday. The installation of libiconv stressed the machine a bit at one point (I think it was during compiling iconv.c that is also giving you problems) but it went on and eventually worked without problems. charon@hades[14:58]/home/charon$ pkg_info | grep libiconv libiconv-1.8_1 A character set conversion library charon@hades[14:58]/home/charon$ gcc -v Using built-in specs. Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler Thread model: posix gcc version 3.2.1 [FreeBSD] 20020901 (prerelease) cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo Are you sure you're not hitting faulty memory or something? -- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve -- http://www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
Giorgos Keramidas wrote: On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. It doesn't here. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ Discussed already... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
Hi, your patch to cp/cp-lang.c fixed the build of kdelibs3 for me. Thanks! Bye! Michael Reifenberger ^.*Plaut.*$, IT, R/3 Basis, GPS To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Alexander Kabaev wrote: I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of unexpected delays, so please be patient. Please respond immediately if you feel that I need to hold the import for some reason. Cool! Thank you for doing hard work, Alexander. BTW, does it mean that we just got a fresh new gcc maintainer? -Maxim To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Maxim Sobolev wrote: Alexander Kabaev wrote: I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of unexpected delays, so please be patient. Please respond immediately if you feel that I need to hold the import for some reason. Cool! Thank you for doing hard work, Alexander. BTW, does it mean that we just got a fresh new gcc maintainer? I just hope we didn't scare him too much :-) Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
'gmake' port broken after (due to ?) GCC 3.2 import
Today (after GCC 3.2 import and makeworld) I try to upgrade 'gmake' port and resulting 'gmake' command dumps core in the libc's 'qsort'. When I make 'gmake' without --with-included-gettext option it work - at least I can make 'databases/gdbm' port with it (which can be made without USE_GMAKE also :-). N.Dudorov To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo In file included from gbk.h:64, from converters.h:202, from iconv.c:67: gbkext1.h: In function `gbkext1_mbtowc': gbkext1.h:852: unrecognizable insn: (insn 157 155 159 (set (reg:QI 79) (const_int 128 [0x80])) -1 (nil) (nil)) gbkext1.h:852: Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html for instructions. *** Error code 1 -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\ -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ This appears to be the cause of the problem. If I comment out CPUTYPE?=athlon in /etc/make.conf, then libiconv compiles without a problem. In file included from gbk.h:64, from converters.h:202, from iconv.c:67: gbkext1.h: In function `gbkext1_mbtowc': gbkext1.h:852: unrecognizable insn: (insn 157 155 159 (set (reg:QI 79) (const_int 128 [0x80])) -1 (nil) (nil)) gbkext1.h:852: Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html for instructions. *** Error code 1 -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:52:56 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O -pipe -march=athlon ^^ This bug is in GCC PR database. Do not use -march=athlon for now. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\ -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ This appears to be the cause of the problem. If I comment out CPUTYPE?=athlon in /etc/make.conf, then libiconv compiles without a problem. I get the same error on a P3: cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=pent iumpro -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo In file included from gbk.h:64, from converters.h:202, from iconv.c:67: gbkext1.h: In function `gbkext1_mbtowc': gbkext1.h:852: unrecognizable insn: (insn 157 155 159 (set (reg:QI 78) (const_int 128 [0x80])) -1 (nil) (nil)) gbkext1.h:852: Internal compiler error in extract_insn, at recog.c:2150 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html for instructions. *** Error code 1 -- Press every key to continue. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:05:40PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:52:56 -0700 Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: O -pipe -march=athlon ^^ This bug is in GCC PR database. Do not use -march=athlon for now. Okay. In case it matters, world builds with -march=athlon set. You may want to add a entry to src/UPDATING about the new gcc 3.2 and any apparent gotcha's (like the problem with -march=athlon). -- Steve To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'gmake' port broken after (due to ?) GCC 3.2 import
Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe what I am seeing there. Do they really believe malloc is supposed to resize memory in-place all the time? Look what happens with map[0-n] elements every time they reallocate their 'string_space' to accomodate (n+1)th entry. Building gmake without --with-included gettext sugddenly seems like a very good idea for me. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'gmake' port broken after (due to ?) GCC 3.2 import
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:06:31 -0400 Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Do they really believe malloc ^^^ I meant realloc here. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\ -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ This appears to be the cause of the problem. If I comment out CPUTYPE?=athlon in /etc/make.conf, then libiconv compiles without a problem. Yes, seems to be any CPUTYPE as far as I can tell -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: 'gmake' port broken after (due to ?) GCC 3.2 import
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe what I am seeing there. PR ports/41075. -- Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too. What about 3.1.1 release? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 10:21:13PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote: Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. My understanding from watching the patches move through mozilla is that the next release of mozilla _will_ work correctly with -CURRENT because it is aware of us not using thunks. The thunks patch for -CURRENT was verified in the mozilla src tree a week or two back. -sc Correct. However, if the compiler changes in -CURRENT not to use thunks, then I need to adjust the local patch, and update the Mozilla bug. Our GCC 3.x now does the exact same thing GCC on Linux does. Why is this not a problem on Linux? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:10:11 -0700 David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too. What about 3.1.1 release? I have GCC 3.1.1 port installed on STABLE. libiconv barf when compiled with it too. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with libiconv-1.8_1. cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\ -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ This appears to be the cause of the problem. If I comment out CPUTYPE?=athlon in /etc/make.conf, then libiconv compiles without a problem. I'm also seeing an internal compiler error during 'make depend' of my kernel, with CPUTYPE=k6. It goes away if I set NO_CPU_COPTFLAGS. Kris msg42485/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
Hi, with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling qt3 and arts): ... c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui -I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/local/include - pthread -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11 R6/include -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/local/include -DNDEBUG -DNO_DEBUG -O2 -O -pipe -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -DQT_NO_TRANSLATION -DQT_CLEAN_NAMESPACE -DQT_NO_ ASCII_CAST -DQT_NO_COMPAT -c kkeyserver_x11.cpp -MT kkeyserver_x11.lo -MD -MP -M F .deps/kkeyserver_x11.TPlo -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/kkeyserver_x11.o kkeyserver_x11.cpp: In function `void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int)': kkeyserver_x11.cpp:73: Internal compiler error in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-lang.c :130 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html for instructions. gmake[3]: *** [kkeyserver_x11.lo] Fehler 1 gmake[3]: Verlassen des Verzeichnisses Verzeichnis »/usr/ports/x11/kdelibs3/work /kdelibs-3.0.3/kdecore ... I tried CFLAGS with -O[1|2] and with or without -march=-pentium3. Always the same error. Anyone else? Bye! Michael Reifenberger ^.*Plaut.*$, IT, R/3 Basis, GPS To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
At 12:29 AM 9/3/2002 +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote: Hi, with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling qt3 and arts): ... c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui -I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/local/include - pthread -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11 R6/include -D_THREAD_SAFE -I/usr/local/include -DNDEBUG -DNO_DEBUG -O2 -O -pipe -fno-exceptions -fno-check-new -DQT_NO_TRANSLATION -DQT_CLEAN_NAMESPACE -DQT_NO_ ASCII_CAST -DQT_NO_COMPAT -c kkeyserver_x11.cpp -MT kkeyserver_x11.lo -MD -MP -M F .deps/kkeyserver_x11.TPlo -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/kkeyserver_x11.o kkeyserver_x11.cpp: In function `void __static_initialization_and_destruction_0(int, int)': kkeyserver_x11.cpp:73: Internal compiler error in cp_expr_size, at cp/cp-lang.c :130 Please submit a full bug report, with preprocessed source if appropriate. See URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/bugs.html for instructions. gmake[3]: *** [kkeyserver_x11.lo] Fehler 1 gmake[3]: Verlassen des Verzeichnisses Verzeichnis »/usr/ports/x11/kdelibs3/work /kdelibs-3.0.3/kdecore ... I tried CFLAGS with -O[1|2] and with or without -march=-pentium3. Always the same error. Anyone else? Same thing here with fresh QT and arts with gcc3.2. With current built this afternoon. before I tried I did a pkg_delete -f kde* so as to not have any stale libs. Manfred == || [EMAIL PROTECTED] || || Ph. (415) 681-6235 || == To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:29:23AM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote: I tried CFLAGS with -O[1|2] and with or without -march=-pentium3. Always the same error. Anyone else? I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either, nor can I build rpm. - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:27:45 -0700 Alex Zepeda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either, nor can I build rpm. Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
Andrea Campi wrote: cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\ -march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ I get the same error on a P3: cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ Maybe -march=* doesn't work? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: internal compiler error with gcc 3.2
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:20:49 -0700 Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=pentiumpro -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo ^ Maybe -march=* doesn't work? I traced it down to broken if_convert optomization. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
The patch I sent is reversed. Use patch -R to apply. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
Where can I find this patch? I didn't see it in the message body or attached to any
of your previous messages.
Sorry,
apparently attachments are stripped now before being delivered
to the mailing lists. The patch is below:
Index: cp/cp-lang.c
===
RCS file: /home/ncvs/src/contrib/gcc/cp/cp-lang.c,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.2
diff -u -r1.1.1.2 cp-lang.c
--- cp/cp-lang.c1 Sep 2002 20:38:06 - 1.1.1.2
+++ cp/cp-lang.c3 Sep 2002 00:47:05 -
@@ -122,14 +122,8 @@
{
if (CLASS_TYPE_P (TREE_TYPE (exp)))
{
- /* The backend should not be interested in the size of an expression
-of a type with both of these set; all copies of such types must go
-through a constructor or assignment op. */
- if (TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_INIT_REF (TREE_TYPE (exp))
- TYPE_HAS_COMPLEX_ASSIGN_REF (TREE_TYPE (exp)))
- abort ();
- /* This would be wrong for a type with virtual bases, but they are
-caught by the abort above. */
+ /* This would be wrong for a type with virtual bases, but they should
+not get here. */
return CLASSTYPE_SIZE_UNIT (TREE_TYPE (exp));
}
else
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: compiling kdelibs3 fails with -current's gcc 3.2
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:10:42PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote: Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h. And how does one do that? - alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of unexpected delays, so please be patient. Please respond immediately if you feel that I need to hold the import for some reason. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of unexpected delays, so please be patient. Please respond immediately if you feel that I need to hold the import for some reason. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be fixed in 3.2. GCC 3.2 is using vendor-independent C++ ABI. Assuming they got it right this time, this will allow us to upgrade to 3.3 more painlessly later. People who were asking for an upgrade got what they deserved :) -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug that changes the API so it couldn't be fixed in 3.1.1. Otherwise they are the same compilers. That said, we don't want to be stuck with a stale compiler for all of 5.x. I highly recomend we use 3.3 in our 5.0-R. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Well, actually, I *wasn't* asking for an upgrade. From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0 development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from working productively for around a month due to various this thats and the others). If that's what people want, that's fine. I could also be totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. This is, IMO, why FreeBSD is not going to be very successful. You cannot just make major toolchain changes w/o at least *some* belief that this is going to be done well. Did you do a dryrun with the import before checking things in? I don't mean to be hypercritical here, but I feel that it's fair, considering people are starting to really whine about how late 5.0 actually *is* at this point, to begin to ask not even the *hard* questions, but medium firm questions about gee, is this trip *really* necessary? -matt On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be fixed in 3.2. GCC 3.2 is using vendor-independent C++ ABI. Assuming they got it right this time, this will allow us to upgrade to 3.3 more painlessly later. People who were asking for an upgrade got what they deserved :) -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months? This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug that changes the API so it couldn't be fixed in 3.1.1. Otherwise they are the same compilers. That said, we don't want to be stuck with a stale compiler for all of 5.x. I highly recomend we use 3.3 in our 5.0-R. All that's good, but is this on the roadmap of RE core so that adequate destabilization time is accounted for? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0 development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from working productively for around a month due to various this thats and the others). If that's what people want, that's fine. I could also be totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. Matt, the change was discussed several times on developers@, so this import is hardly 'out of nowhere'. This is, IMO, why FreeBSD is not going to be very successful. You cannot just make major toolchain changes w/o at least *some* belief that this is going to be done well. Did you do a dryrun with the import before checking things in? About five buildworlds on i386 and two on Alpha. Does that count as dry runs? -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Hi, totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step. 3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes bugs, make kde working (gif support) again, fixes X11 and mozilla ports. I don't mean to be hypercritical here, but I feel that it's fair, considering people are starting to really whine about how late 5.0 actually *is* at this point, to begin to ask not even the *hard* questions, but medium firm questions about gee, is this trip *really* necessary? I think yes. Gcc 3.1 prerelease had some nasty bugs. Martin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now. Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work. I also dislike the apparent general policy of using prereleases for our compiler in FreeBSD. regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT) Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0 development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from working productively for around a month due to various this thats and the others). If that's what people want, that's fine. I could also be totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. Matt, the change was discussed several times on developers@, so this import is hardly 'out of nowhere'. I sure didn't see anything on the recent 5.0 schedule about this. Like I said- this is not meant to be hypercritical. Let's assume that I'm not paying that close attention, like a *lot* of developers to the flood of mail. There might have been a note about new compiler import on the recent 5.X schedule changes that surely would catch the eye. This is, IMO, why FreeBSD is not going to be very successful. You cannot just make major toolchain changes w/o at least *some* belief that this is going to be done well. Did you do a dryrun with the import before checking things in? About five buildworlds on i386 and two on Alpha. Does that count as dry runs? Surely they do. Did somebody in ia64 sparc ppc get a headsup? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal. This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done. Go back to sleep. On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote: Hi, totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step. 3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes bugs, make kde working (gif support) again, fixes X11 and mozilla ports. I don't mean to be hypercritical here, but I feel that it's fair, considering people are starting to really whine about how late 5.0 actually *is* at this point, to begin to ask not even the *hard* questions, but medium firm questions about gee, is this trip *really* necessary? I think yes. Gcc 3.1 prerelease had some nasty bugs. Martin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now. Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work. I also dislike the apparent general policy of using prereleases for our compiler in FreeBSD. This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk is _well_ mitigated. Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It will be a wonder if we get another import done by him. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Matthew Jacob wrote: This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done. Go back to sleep. Would you rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease compiler? Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release? gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix'. They renamed the 3.1 branch to 3.2. All future 3.1.x releases will be called 3.2.x. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
These arguments are all quite familiar- I'm not really moved one way or the other. The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change. I'm *not* arguing against the change- I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion. I *am* commenting on how major changes coming in with little notice often add substantial delays. Furthermore, lack of putting such changes up in such a fashion that a folks in distributed development environment can then adequately plan/protect themselves so *their* stuff is protected is also an issue. Look- if Alexander hadn't said anything, I *probably* wouldn't have noticed. However, he felt that this was important enough to tease people with a 10 minutes until the bombs start falling mail message. It's not unreasonable to raise this as an issue. Or if you think it *is* unreasonable, we can go offline so I can discuss it. -matt On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: Matthew Jacob wrote: This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done. Go back to sleep. Would you rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease compiler? Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release? gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix'. They renamed the 3.1 branch to 3.2. All future 3.1.x releases will be called 3.2.x. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Matthew Jacob wrote: The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change. re@ have been practically begging for it. I'm *not* arguing against the change- I don't know nearly enough to have an opinion. I *am* commenting on how major changes coming in with little notice often add substantial delays. Furthermore, lack of putting such changes up in such a fashion that a folks in distributed development environment can then adequately plan/protect themselves so *their* stuff is protected is also an issue. Look- if Alexander hadn't said anything, I *probably* wouldn't have noticed. However, he felt that this was important enough to tease people with a 10 minutes until the bombs start falling mail message. It's not unreasonable to raise this as an issue. Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail? === begin quote === Subject: Re: A plea for a 5.0-RELEASE .. From: Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2002 23:26:09 -0400 (20:26 PDT) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sat, 31 Aug 2002 20:19:11 -0400 (EDT) Robert Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can manage it, we also need a compiler upgrade for the base system. Right now we can't build usable gif support in QT with the base system g++, we have to install a port. I am testing a buildworld with GCC 3.2 after Heimdal upgrade. If nothing goes wrong, I plan to import GCC 3.2 tomorrow. My home machine is running kernel/buildworld compiled with 3.2 already. === end quote === And then there was quite a bit of followup about it. It has already been established that everybody wanted it, and that it has been tested on i386 and alpha, and the sparc64 folks want it very badly too. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk is _well_ mitigated. Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It will be a wonder if we get another import done by him. Oh, I think GCC 3.2.1 prerelease knocks the socks off 3.1 prerelease. But any time someone is using a FreeBSD -RELEASE, gcc -v should say release in it. That's just MHO. Part of the reason I say this is because the gcc31 port uses the release version and is not subject to the same bugs that the *prerelease* 3.1 compiler that was in -CURRENT was. regards, -- wca To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote: Hi, totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step. 3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes bugs, make kde working (gif support) again, fixes X11 and mozilla ports. Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. Joe I don't mean to be hypercritical here, but I feel that it's fair, considering people are starting to really whine about how late 5.0 actually *is* at this point, to begin to ask not even the *hard* questions, but medium firm questions about gee, is this trip *really* necessary? I think yes. Gcc 3.1 prerelease had some nasty bugs. Martin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail? Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. Joe Why would that change? I do not remember me switching thunks off. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote: On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. Joe Why would that change? I do not remember me switching thunks off. I have no idea if it changed or not. This was just an observation. I'll be testing Mozilla with gcc-3.2.1, and I will fix things as necessary. But thanks for the info. Joe -- Alexander Kabaev PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail? Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies - Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2 - Final resolution of any perl removal related problems - rcNG as the default boot mechanism - New gcc? Matt, please stop trolling. Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies - Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2 - Final resolution of any perl removal related problems - rcNG as the default boot mechanism - New gcc? Small bullet item. Matt, please stop trolling. That is an offensive assumption. It wasn't trolling- nor was it intended as such. Argh. Why do I bother? Screw it. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry. On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies Note: I have tried bringing to -current's attention several times that GEOM and md(4) do not play well together. The following fstab entry continues to fail: /dev/md0 /tmp md rw,nosuid,nodev,-s=32m,-p=1777 0 0 Fyi, -- Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyvale, CA _/ _/ _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/ _/_/ jos at catnook.com_/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer' To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Matthew Jacob wrote: Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies - Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2 - Final resolution of any perl removal related problems - rcNG as the default boot mechanism - New gcc? Small bullet item. Alexander is new at working within our operation so we should give him some room to get fully up to speed. I'm glad that somebody other than me is dealing with this. :-) We really did need this to be done before 5.0-R as the gcc prerelease was a bit of a showstopper when it cannot compile a whole bunch of 'must have' packages. (eg: KDE etc) Lets say that developer awareness of the pending import should have been dealt with better and chalk it up as a learning experience. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Matthew Jacob wrote: Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies - Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2 - Final resolution of any perl removal related problems - rcNG as the default boot mechanism - New gcc? Small bullet item. Alexander is new at working within our operation so we should give him some room to get fully up to speed. I'm glad that somebody other than me is dealing with this. :-) We really did need this to be done before 5.0-R as the gcc prerelease was a bit of a showstopper when it cannot compile a whole bunch of 'must have' packages. (eg: KDE etc) Lets say that developer awareness of the pending import should have been dealt with better and chalk it up as a learning experience. Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big troll hunt and everyone is being accused. -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Hey lets find a way to keep this goddamned thread going.. huh can we... yeah... please... I love hitting delete!!! Keep it up and we'll be as cool as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... /sarcasm On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote: Matthew Jacob wrote: Yes, as best as I can. But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list. To quote Robert Watson: My list basically consists of: General - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related dependencies - Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2 - Final resolution of any perl removal related problems - rcNG as the default boot mechanism - New gcc? Small bullet item. Alexander is new at working within our operation so we should give him some room to get fully up to speed. I'm glad that somebody other than me is dealing with this. :-) We really did need this to be done before 5.0-R as the gcc prerelease was a bit of a showstopper when it cannot compile a whole bunch of 'must have' packages. (eg: KDE etc) Lets say that developer awareness of the pending import should have been dealt with better and chalk it up as a learning experience. Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big troll hunt and everyone is being accused. I wouldn't call it trolling but I would call it stretching the bounds of being on topic. The accusation was unfair however the amount of exchange on the topic [and off] may have gotten out of hand. This tends to irritate people. Dave -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer www.FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: [...] Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't mean it in the context of what's going on in other mailing lists, and it probably wasn't appropriate in any context. Please note, hovever, that many of the concerns that you've brought up in this thread have been *heavily* discussed in the public mailing list over the past month. Just two weeks ago there was a heated discussion over whether to import gcc 3.2, or leapfrog it and wait for 3.3. There have been many more discussions like it. Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote: totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step. 3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes bugs, make kde working (gif support) again, fixes X11 and mozilla ports. Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. My understanding from watching the patches move through mozilla is that the next release of mozilla _will_ work correctly with -CURRENT because it is aware of us not using thunks. The thunks patch for -CURRENT was verified in the mozilla src tree a week or two back. -sc Correct. However, if the compiler changes in -CURRENT not to use thunks, then I need to adjust the local patch, and update the Mozilla bug. However, it sounds like this isn't the case. Joe -- Sean Chittenden PGP Key : http://www.marcuscom.com/pgp.asc To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning. The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step. 3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes bugs, make kde working (gif support) again, fixes X11 and mozilla ports. Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch, and update the Mozilla people. My understanding from watching the patches move through mozilla is that the next release of mozilla _will_ work correctly with -CURRENT because it is aware of us not using thunks. The thunks patch for -CURRENT was verified in the mozilla src tree a week or two back. -sc -- Sean Chittenden msg42429/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress
Thank you. Let's move on. On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Scott Long wrote: On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote: [...] Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning experience. Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't mean it in the context of what's going on in other mailing lists, and it probably wasn't appropriate in any context. Please note, hovever, that many of the concerns that you've brought up in this thread have been *heavily* discussed in the public mailing list over the past month. Just two weeks ago there was a heated discussion over whether to import gcc 3.2, or leapfrog it and wait for 3.3. There have been many more discussions like it. Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:47:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: And we all know how successful that was, right? On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this deeply satisfying experiment again? That was because the patches were not being submitted back against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3 available; the issue for the GCC people was one of not willing to spend the effort to re-test on all platforms. Same reason we don't upgrade RELENG_3 to the latest openssl (or any other lib) -- who knows what else would break that depended on version that is there now. The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!! To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
David O'Brien wrote: And we all know how successful that was, right? On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this deeply satisfying experiment again? That was because the patches were not being submitted back against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3 available; the issue for the GCC people was one of not willing to spend the effort to re-test on all platforms. Same reason we don't upgrade RELENG_3 to the latest openssl (or any other lib) -- who knows what else would break that depended on version that is there now. I thought that this was true for the LD, but not true for the GCC. I think this is a different problem here, since this was a specific reference to GCC 2.95. I definitely agree that this was an issue for the linker; the 2.95 was, I thought, never that much out of date, at the time the FreeBSD specific patches were initially made. The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!! It *was* an older GCC?!? Now I'm confused. We *are* talking about the a.out shared library support, right? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote: Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3 available; the issue for the GCC people was one of not willing to spend the effort to re-test on all platforms. Same reason we don't upgrade RELENG_3 to the latest openssl (or any other lib) -- who knows what else would break that depended on version that is there now. I thought that this was true for the LD, but not true for the GCC. I think this is a different problem here, since this was a specific reference to GCC 2.95. It is more true for GCC than anything I maintain(ed) in src/contrib/ The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG !!! It *was* an older GCC?!? Now I'm confused. We *are* talking about the a.out shared library support, right? Nope. We are talking about various exception and code generation bugs. ELF format and sjlj method. Very mainstream things for FreeBSD. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
GCC 3.2
Hi, Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ? Martin Martin Blapp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ImproWare AG, UNIXSP ISP, Zurlindenstrasse 29, 4133 Pratteln, CH Phone: +41 061 826 93 00: +41 61 826 93 01 PGP: finger -l [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Fingerprint: B434 53FC C87C FE7B 0A18 B84C 8686 EF22 D300 551E -- To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:27:31PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote: Hi, Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ? Martin I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer quickly (it has been addressed several times). -- Morten Rodal // // PGP ID 2D75595B // 22DE D67A 1AEA EF94 872A 9384 6D67 B50B 2D75 595B // msg41985/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: GCC 3.2
Hi, I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer quickly (it has been addressed several times). Thanks, yes found it. But with the answers I'm very unpleased. I really really hope that we import either 3.2 or 3.3 now. Personally I'd go with 3.2. The fact is that several ports need at least gcc3.1.1. We still have a prerelease 3.1 with many bugs there. The situation is very unpleasant. Martin To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
mb The situation is very unpleasant. IIRC, we have no active GCC maintainer, no matter you feel unpleasant or not... -- - Makoto `MAR' Matsushita To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
According to Terry Lambert: There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to incorporate it... There are too many code generation bugs in our version right now. Some ports need 3.1.1 from ports (remember our gcc is 3.1-prerelease). I don't care about 3.2 or 3.3, but I'd say go for snap of 3.3 now, if you look at the ports gcc, gcc32 == gcc33 at the moment. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD keltia.freenix.fr 5.0-CURRENT #80: Sun Jun 4 22:44:19 CEST 2000 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
RE: GCC 3.2
Hi, Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current? Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing anything. It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next line of 5.x releases. Just a thought. Jesse Gross Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work? Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work? Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release will be pretty short and 3.3 is supposed to replace it pretty soon. If we stick with 3.2 in -CURRENT, we'll find ourself tied to an old and unsupported release for the whole 5.x line, i.e. we'll risk to repeat 2.95.x story yet again. David O'Brien proposes to move -CURRENT directly to the 3.3 CVS shanshots, bypassing the GCC 3.2 version altogether. Early FreeBSD 5.x release(s) will not be polished for general consumption anyway, so that makes sense. By the time FreeBSD stabilizes, GCC 3.3 release will be ready. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote: Hi, Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current? Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing anything. It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next line of 5.x releases. Just a thought. Jesse Gross Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work? Scott I'd be willing to help. I'm not exactly sure on what modifications to gcc are required to shove it into the base, but I have time (not working right now). :) -- -Erik [EMAIL PROTECTED] [http://math.smsu.edu/~erik] The opinions expressed by me are not necessarily opinions. In all probability, they are random rambling, and to be ignored. Failure to ignore may result in severe boredom or confusion. Shake well before opening. Keep Refrigerated. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
RE: GCC 3.2
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work? Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release will be pretty short and 3.3 is supposed to replace it pretty soon. If we stick with 3.2 in -CURRENT, we'll find ourself tied to an old and unsupported release for the whole 5.x line, i.e. we'll risk to repeat 2.95.x story yet again. David O'Brien proposes to move -CURRENT directly to the 3.3 CVS shanshots, bypassing the GCC 3.2 version altogether. Early FreeBSD 5.x release(s) will not be polished for general consumption anyway, so that makes sense. By the time FreeBSD stabilizes, GCC 3.3 release will be ready. I agree that gcc32 is not an ideal target either, but by going to it, we can upgrade to gcc33 when it's available and not loose binary compatibility (at least, according to the gcc folks). I'd rather move to gcc32 right now and get the binary compatibility pain out of the way, rather than wait for the last second to move to gcc33, then have to delay FreeBSD 5.0 because everything in c++ land is broken. Scott To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
I agree that gcc32 is not an ideal target either, but by going to it, we can upgrade to gcc33 when it's available and not loose binary compatibility (at least, according to the gcc folks). I'd rather move to gcc32 right now and get the binary compatibility pain out of the way, rather than wait for the last second to move to gcc33, then have to delay FreeBSD 5.0 because everything in c++ land is broken. The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are not giving any guaranrtees. -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Alexander Kabaev wrote: The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are not giving any guaranrtees. Cool. We can call it 3.3 in the release. Just like RedHat jumped the gun on the compiler release. And we all know how successful that was, right? -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Jesse Gross wrote: Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current? Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing anything. It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next line of 5.x releases. I believe David O'brien answer this the last 3 times it was asked. I will paraphrase: No, we are waiting for 3.3. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Cool. We can call it 3.3 in the release. Terry, we will name it the same way we name our current GCC 3.1 snapshots. FreeBSD always shipped tweaked version of GCC with a bunch of local changes merges in. In STABLE, for example, we have gcc version 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD] Just like RedHat jumped the gun on the compiler release. We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace it with newer and possibly binary incompatible 3.3 release shortly afterwards is a complete waste of time. And we all know how successful that was, right? On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this deeply satisfying experiment again? -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Alexander Kabaev wrote: We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace it with newer and possibly binary incompatible 3.3 release shortly afterwards is a complete waste of time. There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to incorporate it... And we all know how successful that was, right? On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC 2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this deeply satisfying experiment again? That was because the patches were not being submitted back against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. The inability to get patches into 2.95 is totally unrelated to the fact that it was an older GCC, and completely related to the fact that the patches were not submitted in accordance with the GCC maintainer's guidelines, combined with not a little Linux advocacy and ELF advocacy. This issue is *nothing* like FreeBSD's steadfast refusal for *two years* to adopt ELF, and GCC treating non-ELF support as legacy support, with no expectations of continued developement. In the context the question was asked, it was *also* not about FreeBSD trying to get patches into GCC, it was about upgrading to GCC 3.2. It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into Jesse Gross's trolling here). It's all well and good to volunteer David O'Brien for additional *useless* work that he has already stated is *useless work*. I could understand raising the issue (though not over and over and over in a short period of time, as Mr. Gross has done recently) if the works was considered something that needed to be done immediately, or if patches to bmake the GCC 3.3 experimental release people want FreeBSD to user were being submitted, but all it's been so far is request for David O'Brien to do work he considers useless. FreeBSD has been conservative in its adoption of new compilers in the past; it would, in fact be reasonable, from an historical perspective, to not see 3.3 adopted for over a year following its release. I don't see why waiting for 3.3 to actually be released is such a terrible idea. Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at me. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
That was because the patches were not being submitted back against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had signed the assignment of rights to the FSF. That was because GCC 2.95.x branch is closed for maintenance. The is no need in complex theory when a simple explanation is more than adequate. It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into Jesse Gross's trolling here). Sorry, guilty as charged. I was trying to get a people opinion on the issue. I will gladly volunteer to import a new version of GCC into -CURRENT myself, if there are no objections and if nobody is doing that already. I think David got a point though and I want his proposal to be discussed more. GCC 3.2 is an interim release and under no circumstances we should get tied to it through all the 5.x branch lifetime. No one will give a damn about it once 3.3 goes into maintenance. Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at me. 3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you guarantee that 3.3 will be backwards compatible with 3.2? This is yet another potential ABI breakage at the time when we'll be _forced_ to upgrade. How often do you expect GCC developers to break ABI with release scheduled to happed and the end of the year? -- Alexander Kabaev To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into Jesse Gross's trolling here). This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most of whose names I don't even know, to cause a chain reaction to result in something like this. I do know that I did not intend for this particular result to happen, and am sorry I started this thread. Believe it or not, sometimes things are actually what they seem, in this case it really was a simple question. Terry, please do not bother replying to this message. Unless people wish to discuss technical details, this thread should be ended. Jesse Gross __ Do You Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs http://www.hotjobs.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Re: GCC 3.2
Alexander Kabaev wrote: Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at me. 3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you guarantee that 3.3 will be backwards compatible with 3.2? This is yet another potential ABI breakage at the time when we'll be _forced_ to upgrade. How often do you expect GCC developers to break ABI with release scheduled to happed and the end of the year? Once for every time the code is imported into FreeBSD, plus one. I think Murphy is a GCC committer... 8-). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
gcc 3.2
What stance is being taken regarding moving to the gcc 3.2 release for the current branch given that 3.2 produces far better code than previous releases. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
