On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:35:41AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
- is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
code goes? Or is that what you mean by bad optimised code ?
We shall see.
OK. 8-)
- The
John Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
exercise? For instance the one make release will exercise? The
WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks make release because
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want to
turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with this.
There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes to compile on a fast
1.2 GHz
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
same libbfd for my own development and for porting of other compilers
and
David O'Brien wrote:
3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
[native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
all 64 bit or RISC GCC code generation is slow -- we will
All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in bsd.sys.mk or
/etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
impose restrictions on the activities of other committers.
It's really not a big deal,
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
- is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
code goes? Or is that what you mean by bad optimised code ?
We shall see.
- The gcc 2.95 compiler is quite a bit slower (it appears) on Alpha than
on x86.
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want
to turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with
this. There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
Yes it comes as part of binutils.
Ok.
No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that
there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
Well, the following URL
http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
for example, seems to imply,
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
libbfd and libiberty do not have version numbers, are not
maintained (i.e. there is no official releases). every project
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a
release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd,
No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils
2.9.1. If you
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
need to let warnings hang out, and in an ideal world I see an need
for (new) warnings to
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
That's the thing. gcc30 port, essentially, installs a copy of the
compiler already available as part of the base. But the base is missing
gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
Compilers from ports suck.
If you set DESTDIR, it
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
same libbfd for my own development and for porting of other compilers
and
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:11:33AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
same libbfd for
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
- is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
code goes? Or is that what you mean by bad optimised code ?
We shall see.
- The gcc 2.95 compiler is quite a bit slower (it appears) on Alpha than
on x86.
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:35:41AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
- is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
code goes? Or is that what you mean by bad optimised code ?
We shall see.
OK. 8-)
- The
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
[native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
all 64 bit or
David O'Brien wrote:
3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
[native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
all 64 bit or RISC GCC code generation is slow -- we will
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:09:10PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Kris Kennaway [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
: On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
: If you use
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Nope, what David was _actually_ trying to say is to hold off with WARNS
fixes until GCC 3.1 becomes our compiler, because otherwise this is an
almost 100% duplicate of efforts, as GCC 3.1 is so WARNS-different from
GCC 2.95.3. And of course David should add NO_WERROR
John Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
exercise? For instance the one make release will exercise? The
WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks make release because
John Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
exercise? For instance the one make release will exercise? The
WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks make release because
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
Nope, what David was _actually_ trying to say is to hold off with WARNS
fixes until GCC 3.1 becomes our compiler, because otherwise this is an
almost 100% duplicate of efforts, as GCC 3.1 is so WARNS-different from
GCC
On 6 Feb, Mark Murray wrote:
[...] a project as important as GCC3 [...]
BTW, how about, may be, if the stars are right, bringing in the Java
support too? gcj is now one of the compilers, that come with the GCC
package...
And it is promising -- it can compile Java into byte code or
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:21:07AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
Well, I think that's true: no one is saying you can't fix the warnings you
find by turning up the warning level.
Well... it would be nice if people would do CORRECT fixes. From
some things DES was saying, people are making some
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
need to let warnings hang out, and in an ideal world I see an need
for (new) warnings to break
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:19:19AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
BTW, how about, may be, if the stars are right, bringing in the Java
support too? gcj is now one of the compilers, that come with the GCC
package...
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
need to let warnings hang out, and in an ideal world I see an need
for (new) warnings to
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want to
turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with this.
There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes to compile on a fast
1.2 GHz
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want
to turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with
this. There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes
hi, there!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:52:40PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
But alright, let's say -- ports. gcj and gcjh themselves are
installed by the several lang/gcc* ports, but they are not functional
(libgcj/libjava are not ported). As a ports committer I might try to
On 7 Feb, Max Khon wrote:
dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
libbfd anf libiberty do not have version numbers, are not maintained
(i.e. there is no official releases). every project includes its own
libiberty and imho an attempt to find least common denominator will
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well... it would be nice if people would do CORRECT fixes. From
some things DES was saying, people are making some really stupid fixes
just to quite warnings. Esp. WRT const.
Yes, the YP code is full of strdup()s that have no purpose other than
to
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
libbfd anf libiberty do not have version numbers, are not maintained
(i.e. there is no official releases). every project includes its own
libiberty and imho an
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
That's the thing. gcc30 port, essentially, installs a copy of the
compiler already available as part of the base. But the base is missing
gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
Compilers from ports suck.
If you set DESTDIR, it
David O'Brien wrote:
But the base is missing
gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
And the base system does not NEED a java compiler.
Or perl.
8-)
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe:
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
And the base system does not NEED a java compiler.
Alright. But a FreeBSD installation -- might.
This bears on the fundamental problem of using the install
tools that come with external source code in order to do
installs.
Probably, it should be built by a make
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: I am starting to think all WARNS cleanup patches should be posted to
: audit and have an Approved by: audit or any of our accepted very
: knowledgeable C standards people.
I think this is a good idea since a
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
Yes it comes as part of binutils.
Ok.
No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that
there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
Well, the following URL
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a
release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd,
No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils
2.9.1. If you
On Tuesday, February 5, 2002, at 01:04 , Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
compiler will cause the tree to
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:12:15PM -0500, Jeroen C.van Gelderen wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
compiler will cause the
At 8:08 PM -0800 2/5/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:12:15PM -0500, Jeroen C.van Gelderen wrote:
David is about to switch to GCC 3.0 and I guess he does not like moving
targets. I would expect that for the GCC 4.0 upgrade a similar freeze
request will go out. And that
At 11:54 PM -0500 2/5/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
At 8:08 PM -0800 2/5/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in bsd.sys.mk or
/etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems.
I would assume
All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in bsd.sys.mk or
/etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
impose restrictions on the activities of other committers.
It's really not a big deal,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:58:53AM +0200, John Hay wrote:
All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in bsd.sys.mk or
/etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
impose restrictions on the
47 matches
Mail list logo
