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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
36 matches
Mail list logo
