preparing for GCC 4.9
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 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org
Re: preparing for GCC 4.9
On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:25 PM, 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, 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 tracks the gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version change. The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [1], a second time in March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [2]. Another test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other compiler regressions on these architectures. I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. I set a build farm with gcc-4.9 for mips64el. It works well: it has no more failures than your amd64 one. All the buildlogs can be found in http://mips.wicp.net:9998/mips2/buildlog/ I noticed ctpp2 failed due to symbols problems on both amd64(pbuilder) and mips64el(sbuild). It seems that you didn't report bug on it. I'll work on fixing the build failures in [2], help is of course appreciated. Almost all build failures are analyzed and should be easy to fix (exceptions e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g. Fedora 21). If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May, beginning of June. Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7, 4.8) will be filed. Matthias [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html [2] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?tag=ftbfs-gcc-4.9;users=debian-...@lists.debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org -- Yunqiang Su -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAKcpw6Ve=nbetyywgw+qm99bohki2q+1dvxw6fzazfna9wc...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [m68k] preparing for GCC 4.9
(excluding d-release for what they hatingly call “debian-ports spam”) Matthias Klose dixit: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot Haven’t tried yet, but Helmut Grohne does automated rebootstrapping of some ports using what he can get his hands on, and he said m68k was the best-(cross)bootstrappable port, and was using gcc-4.9 for it, so there are probably at least no ICEs. If Helmut can publish the *.deb files that fall out of such a (cross) rebootstrap, we could try debootstrapping (natively, in ARAnyM) from them, then boot (a VM) into them, to check basic usage. This sounds pretty few work. Other than that… we’ve built src:gcc-4.9 now, which means that at least the C/C-- part survives the three-stage bootstrap AFAICT. packages) for other architectures. Any possibility to setup such a test rebuild for some architectures by the porters? Afaics the results for the GCC testsuite look okish for every architecture. … that runs it. I have no idea how to set up such a test rebuild setup, but we have somewhat clonable VMs (and a VM base image that “just” needs to be dist-upgraded to latest sid before using it), so “anybody” can do that for m68k (provided they install the aranym package from sid, as it contains FPU emulation bugfixes required by Python 3.5 at least). Also, I’d be interested in a way to run GCC’s testsuite against an installed compiler, i.e. without taking the five days needed for the bootstrap (plus adding dejagnu and removing disabling the testsuite from the package rules) again. bye, //mirabilos -- theftf Ich gebs zu, jupp ist cool -- theftf zu Natureshadow beim Fixen von Debian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1405081543370.28...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: [m68k] preparing for GCC 4.9
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 03:49:51PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote: Matthias Klose dixit: I would like to see some partial test rebuilds (like buildd or minimal chroot Haven???t tried yet, but Helmut Grohne does automated rebootstrapping of some ports using what he can get his hands on, and he said m68k was the best-(cross)bootstrappable port, and was using gcc-4.9 for it, so there are probably at least no ICEs. I should note that rebootstrap builds much less than a minimal chroot. It also does not try to execute any of the results. I did not encounter any ICEs during any builds for any architecture with rebootstrap yet. If Helmut can publish the *.deb files that fall out of such a (cross) rebootstrap, we could try debootstrapping (natively, in ARAnyM) from them, then boot (a VM) into them, to check basic usage. You have two options to achieve that: 1) Check out the rebootstrap git repository, debootstrap a fresh throw-away chroot and run bootstrap.sh in there. Takes 6 hours. Pointers at https://wiki.debian.org/HelmutGrohne/rebootstrap 2) Submit a patch for git.debian.org:/srv/qa/jenkins.debian.org.git to collect build artefacts. Then tell me, so I can trigger a rebuild. Helmut -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-hppa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140508160731.ga1...@alf.mars
