Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-06-04 Thread David Gosselin

Hello and apologies for the cross-post,
I've built GCC 4.9 on my PowerMac G5 (ppc64) running Debian 7.3.  I'd like 
to support the port of Debian to this platform using GCC 4.9 and would 
appreciate a pointer on where to begin if possible.

Additionally, I could provide a SSH login to the machine.
Thanks,
Dave


-Original Message- 
From: Matthias Klose

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:00 AM
To: David Gosselin ; Patrick Baggett
Cc: debian-po...@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

sorry, can't help with this. setting up a pbuilder or sbuild, and start 
building

packages from the base system?

 Matthias

Am 13.05.2014 03:26, schrieb David Gosselin:
I'm in the same boat as Patrick, except with a PowerMac G5. Please let us 
know how to begin.

Thanks,
Dave

On May 12, 2014, at 16:02, Patrick Baggett baggett.patr...@gmail.com 
wrote:


Hi Matthias et al,

I'd like to try to do some of this using my sparc box and see how far I 
get. Is there a link that explains how to set up these steps? Others seem 
to just know what to do, but I haven't the slightest idea 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, 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-ia64-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact 
listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536ba1ce.9070...@debian.org







--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-powerpc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact 
listmas...@lists.debian.org

Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5371fb4e.9090...@debian.org


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/B91D376632C449D19144C06F2D3226D4@Sam



Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-30 Thread Adam Conrad
On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:25:02PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
 
 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'm confident that other than one or two potential outliers, test build
results on powerpc and ppc64 should have the same number of regressions
as ppc64el, and also quite confident that where that's not the case, we
can get it fixed in a hurry, so please do those arches in lockstep with
the rest.

... Adam

PS: Switching hats to arm64, that one should also rev with the rest,
but I think that's probably a no-brainer anyway, given that it's
a new ports, where staying on the cutting edge is usually sanee.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140530100040.gw28...@0c3.net



Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-24 Thread Steven Chamberlain
Hi,

On 08/05/14 16:25, Matthias Klose wrote:
 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 rebuilt 105 source packages on kfreebsd-amd64 comprising minbase and
build-essential (except for GCC itself) using GCC 4.9 and did not notice
any new build failures introduced by it.

I'll continue to check that the binaries compiled by GCC 4.9 are
actually okay.

The issue with running the GCC testsuite on kfreebsd-amd64 buildds is
being fixed by FreeBSD upstream, and on Debian buildds within 1-2 weeks.

Regards,
-- 
Steven Chamberlain
ste...@pyro.eu.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5381122c.3010...@pyro.eu.org



Re: preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-09 Thread Hiroyuki Yamamoto
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Matthias Klose 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'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


OK.
I will cooperate in ppc64 port as possible as i do, 
at least,  tests of rebuilding  the packages of buildd with gcc-4.9.

Regards,
- -- 
Hiroyuki Yamamoto
A75D B285 7050 4BF9 AEDA  91AC 3A10 59C6 5203 04DC
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/
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=n4y4
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/536d776e.6020...@gmail.com



preparing for GCC 4.9

2014-05-08 Thread Matthias Klose
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-s390-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

2014-05-08 Thread Yunqiang Su
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-s390-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

2014-05-08 Thread Thorsten Glaser
(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-s390-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

2014-05-08 Thread Helmut Grohne
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-s390-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140508160731.ga1...@alf.mars