Please check with a gcc-2.95.3 prerelease compiled by Chris
(http://master.debian.org/~doko/alpha) or with the test release
currently in incoming.
Current gcc snapshots (2.97) can be found in experimental (currently in
incoming).
Jim Crilly writes:
Anthony Towns (aj@azure.humbug.org.au)
Please can you submit this patch upstream ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
against the HEAD branch of gcc (which you can find as the gcc-snapshot
package in Debian). Add the documentation to gcc/doc/invoke.texi.
It's up to Chris Chimelis or Falk, if it should be applied to the gcc
package.
Tyson Whitehead
root writes:
Package: gcc-3.3
Version: 1:3.3.1-0rc1
Severity: normal
trying to compile kernel 2.4.22-pre8 on alpha i get:
fork.c: In function `dup_mmap':
fork.c:144: error: unrecognizable insn:
(insn 59 52 61 0 0x2ce7760 (set (reg/f:DI 82)
(symbol_ref:DI (@Smmlist_nr))) -1
[CCing to debian-alpha]
As Chris (currently listed as package maintainer for gcc alpha) seems
to be away, I'll ask on debian-alpha (Falk?), if this patch should be
included. In that case the documentation should be changed to
explicitely mention Debian instead of Linux.
Tyson Whitehead writes:
tags 248091 -fixed
thanks
alpha porters, please could someone investigate why libglut.so does
contain non-PIC objects?
The build log [1] shows the object files beeing built with -fPIC, but
pike7.4's build log [2] thinks otherwise.
[1]
Package: gcc-4.1
Version: gcc-4.1.0-0
Seen on two machines, the make -k check just terminates with Killed.
dmesg shows:
pass37-frag.exe(12520): unaligned trap at 000120026820: 00012aac 29
1
pass37-frag.exe(12520): unaligned trap at 0001200268a0: 00012794 29
5
Will gcc-4.0 be dropped as a build dependency for etch, or be kept?
And on which architectures?
Would you mind dropping gcc-4.0 from etch for some architectures?
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
While having built and uploaded things correctly for experimental, I
didn't do the same for unstable, which now needs some manual
intervention building gnat-4.1 and gcj-4.1.
gnat-4.1 (mips mipsel s390 sparc):
- work in a sid chroot
- install gnat-4.1-base libgnat-4.1 libgnatprj4.1
The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg8.html
Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
objections against the transition.
Besides m68k hopelessly being behind we do have serious problems on
alpha, arm and hppa.
- on arm, the bytecode compiler (ecj) doesn't produce correct code.
there is currently a workaround to build the package on arm using
byte-compiled code built on another architecture. Aurelian has
For all ports besides alpha and hppa we plan to make GCC-4.3 the
default compilers for lenny.
- both alpha and hppa show regressions in the glibc testsuite when
built with GCC-4.3
- gcj has a lot of regressions in 4.3 on alpha (but doesn't work in
4.2 either).
- gij/gcj shows bus
Package: gnat-4.3
Version: 4.3.0-1
Severity: serious
see
http://buildd.debian.org/fetch.cgi?pkg=gnat-4.3ver=4.3-20080202-1arch=alphastamp=1202775192file=log
upstream builds to bootstrap.
please fix this asap, the migration of gcc-defaults to testing depends
on it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email
Hi,
openjdk-6 in unstable is updated to the 6b14 code drop, built from a recent
IcedTea snapshot. There are a few regressions in the ports which don't use the
hotspot VM, but the Zero VM. Help from porters would be appreciated.
There are two new binary packages offering additional JVMs:
-
Besides the open license issue, are there any objections from port maintainers
to make GCC-4.4 the default?
As a first step that would be a change of the default for C, C++, ObjC, ObjC++
and Fortran.
I'm not sure about Java, which show some regressions compared to 4.3. Otoh it's
not amymore
Building icedtea6 on alpha and armel using a two stage bootstrap fails with
different errors. These are no new errors, just rechecked the two stage
bootstrap, because the one stage build fails to build cacao after the b18
update. On alpha:
mkdir -p lib/rt
On 08.03.2010 13:34, Andrew John Hughes wrote:
further, is it correct that the -ecj patch is applied to *both* the openjdk
and openjdk-ecj directory?
$ ls -l build/openjdk*/jdk/src/share/classes/sun/misc/FloatConsts.java
-rw-rw-r-- 2 doko doko 4147 Feb 17 03:14
Version: 4.3.5-1
On 12.12.2009 14:43, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:30:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 02:33:28PM +1300, Michael Cree wrote:
What is the timeframe for getting the Alpha buildds updated to a
fixed version of gcc?
We've switched to 4.4 as
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs (turning on
--as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain/DSOLinking. I would like to know about issues
with these changes on some of the Debian ports, and if we need
On 15.11.2010 07:16, Roland McGrath wrote:
mattst88 airlied_, does Fedora use --as-needed by default? Fedora 14 too?
airlied_ mattst88: yes
The naming of the options makes people easily confused.
--no-add-needed is the only option Fedora's gcc passes.
yes, OpenSuse is using --as-needed,
On 14.11.2010 16:06, Roger Leigh wrote:
While I understand the rationale for --no-copy-dt-needed-entries for
preventing encapsulation violations via indirect linking, I don't agree
with the use of --as-needed *at all*. If a library has been explicitly
linked in, it shouldn't be removed. This
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning on --as-needed and --no-copy-dt-needed-entries. The
rationale is summarized in
http://wiki.debian.org/ToolChain
On 16.11.2010 10:42, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:14:09AM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 14.11.2010 13:19, Julien Cristau wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 15:43:57 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
For wheezy I'm planning to change the linking behaviour for DSOs
(turning
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises
on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the
On 02.03.2011 07:36, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 2 March 2011 03:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the
next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the
default
compiler
On 02.03.2011 17:54, Martin Guy wrote:
On 2 March 2011 02:34, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
armel (although optimized for a different processor)
Hi
For which processor (/architecture) is it optimized, and do you mean
optimized-for, or only-runs-on?
I ask in case this would mean
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.6suite=experimental
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/opts.o differs
make[4]: *** [compare] Error 1
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-snapshot
fails to build with a link error.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 21.03.2011 13:19, Uros Bizjak wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.6suite=experimental
Bootstrap comparison failure!
gcc/opts.o differs
make[4]: *** [compare] Error 1
Hm, 4.6.0-prerelease
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
compiler for almost any other
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klosed...@debian.org wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of
GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and
powerpc.
Could you include armhf in the list as well?
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
I'll make GCC 4.6 the
default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
least on amd64, armel, i386
Please have a look at the gcc-4.7 package in experimental, update patches (hurd,
kfreebsd, ARM is fixed in svn), and investigate the build failures (currently
ia64, but more will appear).
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-alpha-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of
GCC-4.7 packages are now available in testing and unstable; thanks to Lucas'
test rebuild, bug reports are now filed for these ~330 packages which fail to
build with the new version [1]. Hints how to address the vast majority of these
issues can be found at [2].
I'm planning to work on these
GCC 4.7 is now the default for x86 architectures for all frontends except the D
frontends, including KFreeBSD and the Hurd.
There are still some build failures which need to be addressed. Out of the ~350
bugs filed, more than the half are fixed, another quarter has patches available,
and the
It's time to change the Java default to java7, and to drop java support on
architectures with non-working java7.
Patches for the transition to Java7 should be available in the BTS, mostly
submitted by James Page. Some may be still lurking around as diffs in Ubuntu
packages, apologies for that.
Am 07.05.2013 15:25, schrieb Matthias Klose:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures is
left to the Debian port maintainers.
[...]
Information on porting to GCC 4.8 from previous versions of GCC can be
found in the porting guide http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.8
Am 13.06.2013 21:47, schrieb Thorsten Glaser:
Matthias Klose dixit:
The Java and D frontends now default to 4.8 on all architectures, the Go
frontend stays at 4.7 until 4.8 get the complete Go 1.1 support.
I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
until the 4.8 one
Am 13.06.2013 16:46, schrieb Steven Chamberlain:
Hi,
On 13/06/13 13:51, Matthias Klose wrote:
GCC 4.8 is now the default on all x86 architectures, and on all ARM
architectures (the latter confirmed by the Debian ARM porters). I did not
get
any feedback from other port maintainers, so
Am 15.06.2013 03:22, schrieb Stephan Schreiber:
GCC-4.8 should become the default on ia64 soon; some other changes are
desirable:
- The transition of gcc-4.8/libgcc1 to libunwind8.
- A removal of the libunwind7 dependency of around 4600 packages on ia64 -
when
they are updated next time
Am 29.10.2013 17:48, schrieb Ian Jackson:
(Mind you, I have my doubts about a process which counts people
promising to do work - it sets up some rather unfortunate incentives.
I guess it's easier to judge and more prospective than a process which
attempts to gauge whether the work has been
Control: tags -1 + moreinfo
Afaics, the situation didn't change. There is nobody committing to work on the
toolchain for these architectures. At least for release architectures the
alternative is to drop the port unless somebody wants to maintain the toolchain
for this port. This is the current
Am 02.12.2013 23:20, schrieb Hiroyuki Yamamoto:
Hi,
I don't know whether it is appropriate that I remark,
I have no objection to moving to gcc-4.8 on ppc64, too.
this is not a question about any objections, but about a call to the ppc64
porters if they are able to maintain such a port in
gcc-4.9 is uploaded to experimental, asking the porters to watch for build
failures and corresponding patches. See
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=gcc-4.9suite=experimental
These are already fixed in the vcs.
- fixed the gospec.c ftbfs on archs without ld.gold
- fixed the g++
Am 16.01.2014 13:31, schrieb Aníbal Monsalve Salazar:
For mips/mipsel, I - fix toolchain issues together with other developers at
ImgTec
It is nice to see such a commitment, however in the past I didn't see any such
contributions.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805
of where to begin.
I have a box with gcc-4.9, plenty of disk space, and electricity to burn.
Where do I start?
Patrick
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change
of
the default to 4.9
On 10.09.2016 09:59, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10-09-16 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> - fpc not available on powerpc anymore (may have changed recently)
>
> For whatever it is worth, this was finally fixed this week. It is
> missing on mips*, ppc64el and s390
While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria documented
by the release team. I'd like to document the status how I do understand it for
some of the toolchains available in Debian.
I appreciate that
On 20.09.2016 23:46, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:16 PM, Niels Thykier wrote:
>>- powerpc: No porter (RM blocker)
>
> I'd be happy to pick up powerpc to keep it for Stretch. I'm already
> maintaining powerpcspe which is very similar to powerpc.
No, you are not
On 15.09.2016 22:43, Helge Deller wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On 10.09.2016 00:48, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> While the Debian Release team has some citation about the quality of the
>> toolchain on their status page, it is not one of the release criteria
>> documented
&
[CCing porters, please also leave feedback in #835148 for non-release
architectures]
On 29.09.2016 21:39, Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As brought up on the meeting last night, I think we should try to go for
> PIE by default in Stretch on all release architectures!
> * It is a substantial
According to [1], binutils 2.31 (currently in experimental) will branch in about
a week, and I'll plan to upload the branch version to unstable. Test results
are reported to [2], these look reasonable, except for the various mips targets,
however as seen in the past, it doesn't make a
Package: src:gcc-7
Version: 7.2.0-20
Severity: important
Seen with the last GCC 7 build from the branch on alpha,
make[4]: Entering directory '/<>/build'
make[5]: Entering directory '/<>/build'
rm -f stage_current
make[5]: Leaving directory '/<>/build'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
warning:
seen on the gcc-7 branch, and now on trunk as well, with the gdc frontend
merged.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=gcc-8=alpha=8-20180130-1=1517382957=0
make[5]: Entering directory '/<>/build'
rm -f stage_current
make[5]: Leaving directory '/<>/build'
Comparing stages 2 and 3
GCC 8 is available in testing/unstable, and upstream is approaching the first
point release. I am planning to make GCC 8 the default at the end of the week
(gdc and gccgo already point to GCC 8). Most runtime libraries built from GCC
are already used in the version built from GCC 8, so I don't
Package: src:openjdk-11, src:binutils
Severity: important
openjdk-11 ftbfs on alpha, linking libjvm.
full build log at
https://buildd.debian.org/status/fetch.php?pkg=openjdk-11=alpha=11.0.2%2B7-1=1547859652=0
[...]
Linking libjvm.so
( /bin/rm -f
On 07.07.18 17:24, YunQiang Su wrote:
> Niels Thykier 于2018年6月28日周四 上午4:06写道：
>> List of concerns for architectures
>> ==
>>
>> The following is a summary from the current architecture qualification
>> table.
>>
>> * Concern for ppc64el and s390x: we are dependent
gnat currently fails to build on alpha-linux-gnu, apparently not yet
reproducible upstream. An idea?
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88200
Matthias
Package: src:gcc-9
Severity: important
At least in a cross build according to
https://launchpadlibrarian.net/409942596/buildlog_ubuntu-disco-amd64.gcc-9-cross-ports_0ubuntu1_BUILDING.txt.gz
The native alpha build wasn't yet started.
dh_movefiles -plibgfortran-9-dev-alpha-cross
On 13.04.19 17:01, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 15371 March 1977, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>
>>> How is the move to debian-ports supposed to happen? I won't have the
>>> time to do anything about it within the 2 weeks.
>
>> The process to inject all packages to debian-ports is to get all the
>> deb,
The recent gcc-8 and gcc-9 uploads to unstable are now built using pgo and lto
optimization. Not on all architectures, see debian/rules.defs. On the plus
side the compilers are 7-10% faster, however the build time of the compiler is
much longer, adding 10-20 hours. If people feel that this
GCC 9 was released earlier this year, it is now available in Debian
testing/unstable. I am planning to do the defaults change in mid August, around
the time of the expected first GCC 9 point release (9.2.0).
There are only soname changes for rather unused shared libraries (libgo)
involved, and
Debian bullseye will be based on a gcc-10 package taken from the gcc-10 upstream
branch, and binutils based on a binutils package taken from the 2.35 branch.
I'm planning to make gcc-10 the default after gcc-10 (10.2.0) is available
(upstream targets mid July). binutils will be updated before
On 12/1/20 5:02 AM, YunQiang Su wrote:
> I am sorry for the later response.
>Hi,
>
> I am an active porter for the following architectures and I intend
> to continue this for the lifetime of the Bullseye release (est. end
> of 2024):
>
> For mipsel and mips64el, I
> - test most
Link time optimizations are an optimization that helps with a single digit
percent number optimizing both for smaller size, and better speed. These
optimizations are available for some time now in GCC. Link time optimizations
are also at least turned on in other distros like Fedora, OpenSuse
64 matches
Mail list logo
