Julien Cristau wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 14:51:43 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
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
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 14:51:43 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
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
On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 11:48:39PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0200, 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).
Please change the default for
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 02:51:43PM +0200, 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).
GCC 4.8 seems fine on s390x, it can build a running Linux kernel. On
s390 something weird happened
On 14-06-13 21:11, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Wouter, Mikael: input on switching C/C++ to 4.8?
We don't have much data either way, do we?
I suppose it shouldn't be too much of a problem, but I can't be sure. In
the past we've usually taken the plunge, and filed bugs if things go
really bad.
--
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net wrote:
Hi Aurelien,
On 18-Jun-13, at 6:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
This is true that they have recently contacted me through another email
address, but I haven't found time to work on that. Just stay tuned.
That's
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:12:30PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
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
Hi Aurelien,
On 18-Jun-13, at 6:05 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
This is true that they have recently contacted me through another
email
address, but I haven't found time to work on that. Just stay tuned.
That's great news.
Helge and I have been working away as best we can to maintain the
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 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
Matthias Klose dixit:
I’d like to have gcj at 4.6 in gcc-defaults for m68k please,
until the 4.8 one stops FTBFSing.
please send a patch.
For gcc-defaults? I think that one is trivial…
For gcj? I did not take Compiler Design in what two semesters
of Uni I managed until I ran out of money. I
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 after the transition. The
libc6.1 should (likely)
Am 13.06.2013 04:46, schrieb Shawn:
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce binutils
trunk leading to 2.24, later
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
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 unless this does change and port
maintainers get
Am Donnerstag, den 13.06.2013, 15:46 +0100 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
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 stops FTBFSing.
From me nothing against switching C/C++
Hi,
On 13/06/13 20:47, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
From me nothing against switching C/C++ to 4.8 for m68k at
this point, but I’d like to hear at least Wouter’s opinion
on that, and possibly Mikael [...]
Before that can be changed, I think the gcc-defaults package expects
package version (=
Steven Chamberlain dixit:
Before that can be changed, I think the gcc-defaults package expects
package version (= 4.8.1-2) whereas m68k still has only the 4.8.0-7 you
uploaded.
Right. That’s because gcj FTBFSes.
You will also first need newer binutils (= 2.23.52) which is still in
the build
Am 08.05.2013 00:55, schrieb Matthias Klose:
Am 07.05.2013 17:46, schrieb Julian Taylor:
On 05/07/2013 03:25 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
...
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:25 AM, Matthias Klose d...@debian.org wrote:
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce binutils
trunk leading to 2.24, later this year.
binutils' ld-gold is broken
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Wookey woo...@wookware.org wrote:
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce binutils
trunk leading to 2.24, later this year.
I've only tested 2.23.1 but
+++ Matthias Klose [2013-05-07 15:25 +0200]:
== GCC 4.8 ==
GCC versions were updated to GCC 4.7.4 and GCC 4.8.0 (both updated to
the current branch). The default compilers were not yet changed in
unstable. It is planned to make GCC 4.8 the default on the x86
architectures after the 4.8.1
On 09/05/2013 06:06, Florian Weimer wrote:
I mistyped, I meant ABI. I'm deeply sorry about that, it mangles my
statement quite badly.
AFAIK, this is the major reason why the C++11 support is still marked
as experimental.
C++ never had a set ABI in the standard. It's up to
* Matthias Klose:
glibc's version bump to 2.17 should be mostly uneventful, with the
exception of a few more compiler warnings and errors, and the long
overdue removal of gets() from the API. FTBFS bugs for the above
have already been filed, and patches submitted for many of the new
build
* Roger Leigh:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures
is left to the Debian port maintainers.
This makes using C++11 and other features only in 4.8 rather difficult.
C++11 hasn't got a stable API
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:08:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roger Leigh:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures
is left to the Debian port maintainers.
This makes using C++11 and other
* Roger Leigh:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 08:08:31AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Roger Leigh:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures
is left to the Debian port maintainers.
This makes
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
The decision when to make GCC 4.8 the default for other architectures
is left to the Debian port maintainers.
This makes using C++11 and other features only in 4.8 rather difficult.
Explicit build-deps on specific compilers are not
On 05/07/2013 03:25 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
...
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce binutils
trunk leading to 2.24, later this year.
fyi, this change will introduce a couple new
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
GCC.
What a wonderful coordination with the release team. Quoting the last
mail from them on the mailing list:
| As for Squeeze, we'd ask that you co-ordinate
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 10:03:58AM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Even if I have to admit I currently don't have a lot of time, it would
have been nice to keep the other people in the team in the loop about
such an upload.
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 05:48:52PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Even if I have to admit I currently don't have a lot of time, it would
have been nice to keep the other people in the team in the loop about
such an upload.
You'd been fairly inactive of late, and I felt I'd take some initiative
On May 07, Aurelien Jarno aurel...@aurel32.net wrote:
blocked in sid until eglibc is fixed on kfreebsd.
I see a simple solution to two problems here... :-)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Am 07.05.2013 17:46, schrieb Julian Taylor:
On 05/07/2013 03:25 PM, Matthias Klose wrote:
...
== binutils ==
binutils 2.23.2 will be uploaded to unstable after GCC 4.8 as the
default on x86 reaches testing. Later updates will introduce binutils
trunk leading to 2.24, later this year.
Am 07.05.2013 17:48, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
GCC.
What a wonderful coordination with the release team. Quoting the last
mail from them on the mailing list:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:39:25AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Am 07.05.2013 17:48, schrieb Aurelien Jarno:
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:25:29PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
Up to today jessie did see updates for the kernel headers, eglibc, and
GCC.
What a wonderful coordination with
Hi,
On 07/05/13 14:25, Matthias Klose wrote:
== (e)glibc 2.17 ==
We had hoped that leaving
it FTBFS in experimental for several months and gently pinging [...]
That was a bit unexpected, and I haven't seen it brought up on
debian-bsd@ until now.
== GCC 4.8 ==
It is planned to only keep
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
They weren't coordinated within the team. Furthermore I don't consider
that eglibc was ready to go to unstable, as it was known that two
architectures were going to FTBFS, without a real try to get that fixed
(for example by
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 06:35:16PM -0600, Adam Conrad wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
They weren't coordinated within the team. Furthermore I don't consider
that eglibc was ready to go to unstable, as it was known that two
architectures were going
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 01:39 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
[...]
- I didn't upload linux-libc-dev myself, but until today I didn't
see any announcement or a test rebuild done by the Debian kernel
maintainers, so I did add the note about what I did see in multiple
packages when doing a
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
(b) It's completely useless on a Debian system, as the kernel doesn't
support x32 binaries.
Is there a big reason to not enable CONFIG_X86_X32 in default kernels?
It doesn't seem to have more downsides than your average kernel
On Wed, 2013-05-08 at 05:15 +0200, Adam Borowski wrote:
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 01:59:38AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
(b) It's completely useless on a Debian system, as the kernel doesn't
support x32 binaries.
Is there a big reason to not enable CONFIG_X86_X32 in default kernels?
44 matches
Mail list logo
