On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
3.3.0 will be released before FreeBSD 5.1. It is my advice to
FreeBSD'ville that we go with a GCC 3.3 snapshot for FBSD 5.0 and a GCC
3.3.0 release for FBSD 5.1. That way we can get the new features of 3.3
into our 5.x branch. AND get bug fixes by
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
archaic does apply however.
Why the fsck can't people come up to
David O'Brien wrote:
It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
FreeBSD to not be pulling a RedHat if they shipped a beta and
called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev
from there.
Lamont Granquist wrote:
5.0 will be a beta and will not be ready for production use right?
No. But no one will use it anyway, because no one trusts a .0
version of anything.
I'm not sure exactly how FreeBSD would be pulling a redhat by putting in
a development snapshot if the 5.0 release
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
In general, though, the answer is that 3.1 sucks and 2.9x
does not. 8-).
Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experience.
Use at least GCC 3.2, if you feel compelled to use a buggy
non-maintenance release level GCC;
David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
In general, though, the answer is that 3.1 sucks and 2.9x
does not. 8-).
Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experience.
Use at least GCC 3.2, if you feel compelled to use a buggy
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:06:08PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
David O'Brien wrote:
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
In general, though, the answer is that 3.1 sucks and 2.9x
does not. 8-).
Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experience.
David O'Brien wrote:
Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
planning a 3.3. 8-).
And comments on this list to that effect.
I don't follow. The GCC group branches previous to a release and makes
an initial + point releases from it.
I thought it was the
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:10:06 +0200
Alexander Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alex@zerogravity ~ $ c++ -pipe -g -fpic -DPIC -Wall -c test.cc
In file included from /usr/include/g++/iostream.h:31,
from /usr/include/g++/strstream.h:32,
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:24:28PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:10:06 +0200
Alexander Langer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
alex@zerogravity ~ $ c++ -pipe -g -fpic -DPIC -Wall -c test.cc
In file included from /usr/include/g++/iostream.h:31,
from
There are, but they are in:
/usr/include/g++/backward/iostream.h
/usr/include/g++/backward/strstream.h
They are in different place = they are different. Alexander, remove
/usr/include/g++ before your next installworld.
This is FAQ.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL
Alexander Langer wrote:
What's going on wrong here?
GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
header files from the previous compiler version.
In general, though, the answer is that
Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What's going on wrong here?
GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
header files from the previous compiler version.
The -STABLE -
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:21:39AM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote:
I felt like using -CURRENT's 3.1, as it is expected.
Well, I'll try to look if a new world fixes the problem, though I bet it
won't.
rm -rf /usr/include/g++
Now, build your new world.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail
Alexander Langer wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What's going on wrong here?
GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
header files from the previous
sstream is the correct header.
This is not a bug
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 08:21 PM, Alexander Langer wrote:
Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
What's going on wrong here?
GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
the
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:47:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
And we all know how successful that was, right?
On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
deeply satisfying experiment
David O'Brien wrote:
And we all know how successful that was, right?
On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
deeply satisfying experiment again?
That was because the patches
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our
FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to
fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3
available; the
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:27:31PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote:
Hi,
Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ?
Martin
I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
quickly (it has been addressed several times).
--
Morten Rodal
//
// PGP ID 2D75595B
//
Hi,
I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
quickly (it has been addressed several times).
Thanks, yes found it. But with the answers I'm very unpleased. I really
really hope that we import either 3.2 or 3.3 now. Personally I'd
go with 3.2.
The fact is that
mb The situation is very unpleasant.
IIRC, we have no active GCC maintainer, no matter you feel unpleasant or not...
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
According to Terry Lambert:
There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to
incorporate it...
There are too many code generation bugs in our version right now. Some
ports need 3.1.1 from ports (remember our gcc is 3.1-prerelease).
I don't care about 3.2 or 3.3, but I'd say go
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
Just a thought.
Jesse Gross
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short and 3.3 is
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote:
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short
I agree that gcc32 is not an ideal target either, but by going to it,
we can upgrade to gcc33 when it's available and not loose binary
compatibility (at least, according to the gcc folks). I'd rather
move to gcc32 right now and get the binary compatibility pain out of
the way, rather than
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are
not giving any guaranrtees.
Cool.
We can call it 3.3 in the
Jesse Gross wrote:
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
I believe David O'brien answer this the last 3 times it
Cool.
We can call it 3.3 in the release.
Terry, we will name it the same way we name our current GCC 3.1
snapshots. FreeBSD always shipped tweaked version of GCC with a bunch
of local changes merges in. In STABLE, for example, we have
gcc version 2.95.4 20020320 [FreeBSD]
Just like
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace it
That was because the patches were not being submitted back
against the unadulterated distribution code someone who had
signed the assignment of rights to the FSF.
That was because GCC 2.95.x branch is closed for maintenance. The is no
need in complex theory when a simple explanation is more
It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
Jesse Gross's trolling here).
This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were
intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most
of
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
me.
3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you
So gents (and ladies :-), what do we do about this? We had this change
pre-3.1, and we have it in -STABLE now, so I assume we should no longer
lie that our -CURRENT is so WARNS-clean?
: --
: stage 4: building everything..
:
÷ Thu, 11.07.2002, × 19:52, Joe Marcus Clarke ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ:
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 03:13, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On (2002/07/10 19:15), Dirk Engling wrote:
Maybe this would be more interesting to
the mozilla guys but mozilla compiles on
2.95.3, so I think, the problem is related
to
On (2002/07/10 19:15), Dirk Engling wrote:
Maybe this would be more interesting to
the mozilla guys but mozilla compiles on
2.95.3, so I think, the problem is related
to gcc-3.1
As far as I know, ports/lang/gcc31 is still required to build mozilla.
Ciao,
Sheldon.
To Unsubscribe: send mail
On Thu, 2002-07-11 at 03:13, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On (2002/07/10 19:15), Dirk Engling wrote:
Maybe this would be more interesting to
the mozilla guys but mozilla compiles on
2.95.3, so I think, the problem is related
to gcc-3.1
As far as I know, ports/lang/gcc31 is still required to
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:26:50PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade installed XFree86-4-Server package, but found that
a new gcc can't compile it. Following is relevant error output:
...
In file included from translate.c:779:
../../../../extras/Mesa/src/trans_tmp.h:
At 5:26 PM +0300 7/3/02, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade installed XFree86-4-Server package,
but found that a new gcc can't compile it. Following is
relevant error output:
[...skipped...]
Please investigate fix.
Some information is in the email-thread under the subject:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 11:45:19AM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
which has been seeing sporadic messages over the past week
or two. Sheldon has a few informative messages which include
some patches to test. (although I don't think the patches
are a complete fix for the problems we're
David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 05:26:50PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to upgrade installed XFree86-4-Server package, but found that
a new gcc can't compile it. Following is relevant error output:
...
In file included from translate.c:779:
At 9:27 AM -0700 7/3/02, David O'Brien wrote:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Sheldon has a few informative messages which include
some patches to test. (although I don't think the patches
are a complete fix for the problems we're seeing -- see my
replies to that thread
On (2002/07/03 13:29), Garance A Drosihn wrote:
With his patches I was able to compile and install imake. I was
able to compile XFree86-4-libraries, but the 'make install' of it
fails for me after getting most of the way through. I suspect
this is a build problem, not a cc problem.
Yes,
At 8:07 PM +0200 7/3/02, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
Yes, remember that you're building the MATROX stuff, which I'm not.
Yes, I should have mentioned that. Is Maxim compiling the matrox
drivers? Perhaps I should retry without those.
Also, remember that my patches were for the base system's
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 02:15:13PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
Fwiw, I am also using the system toolchain (as cvsup'ed late last
night), and not the port.
I can build x11/XFree86-4 with the following patches, which I harvested
from various email's since the gcc 3.1 import. Which ones
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:56:02PM +0200, Jeremy Lea wrote:
I can build x11/XFree86-4 with the following patches, which I harvested
from various email's since the gcc 3.1 import. Which ones are really
needed, and why the X11 libraries are built four times during the build
of the meta port,
Hi,
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 01:10:08PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Some one needs to do thru these and really deal with them.
I didn't say they were right, just that they worked ;-)
* The patch to use -O0 (or remove -O) is wrong, and a test case should be
submitted to the GCC people.
I
Jeremy Lea [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
1. What the patches actually do...
2. If we can use one shared ${WRKSRC}, since the ports build multiple
copies of all of the libraries, and they use the wrong (unpatched)
versions of the config files in some cases.
While you're at it:
Index:
On Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:08:28PM +0300, Maxim Sobolev wrote:
In file included from translate.c:779:
../../../../extras/Mesa/src/trans_tmp.h: In function `trans_1_GLdouble_1ub_elt':
../../../../extras/Mesa/src/trans_tmp.h:124: could not find a spill register
(insn 96 94 97 (set
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
latest gcc on current ? Just curious. Cause mozilla won't compile
with gcc from current and I have installed gcc from the ports just
for that.
I hacked together a really crude patch based on some info from Joe
Clark(e?). Dig
On 2002-06-25 12:44 +, Sid Carter wrote:
Hi,
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
latest gcc on current ? Just curious. Cause mozilla won't compile with
gcc from current and I have installed gcc from the ports just for that.
Thanks
Regards
Sid
Not
Title: RE: GCC upgrade ? on -current
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
latest gcc on current ? Just curious. Cause mozilla won't compile
with gcc from current and I have installed gcc from the ports just
for that.
Only David's(?) time constraints I think
Sid Carter wrote:
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
latest gcc on current ? Just curious. Cause mozilla won't compile with
gcc from current and I have installed gcc from the ports just for that.
On Intel, FreeBSD will automatically use 4M pages for mmap'ed
device
Is this not the latest one?
alpha:~: gcc -v
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.1 [FreeBSD] 20020509 (prerelease)
Ken
On Tue, 25 Jun 2002, Sid Carter wrote:
Hi,
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
Munish Chopra wrote:
On 2002-06-25 12:44 +, Sid Carter wrote:
Just a query. Is there anything stopping us from moving to the
latest gcc on current ? Just curious. Cause mozilla won't compile with
gcc from current and I have installed gcc from the ports just for that.
Not exactly an
On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:28:44 MST, Lamont Granquist wrote:
I got non-deterministic internal compiler errors when I was trying to
compile mozilla. At the same time I was compiling gnome in another
terminal window. It only happened with mozilla, it was non-deterministic
in that I could do
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:59:36PM +0200, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:28:44 MST, Lamont Granquist wrote:
I got non-deterministic internal compiler errors when I was trying to
compile mozilla. At the same time I was compiling gnome in another
terminal window. It only
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:58:54AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Please raise your concern with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I provided them with
a USE_GCC patch that would make this easier 2 months ago. It still has
yet to be committed to bsd.port.mk.
For the benefit of others, there are problems with
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 04:21:17PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:58:54AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Please raise your concern with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I provided them with
a USE_GCC patch that would make this easier 2 months ago. It still has
yet to be committed
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 06:58:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 04:21:17PM -0700, Kris Kennaway wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 10:58:54AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
Please raise your concern with [EMAIL PROTECTED] I provided them with
a USE_GCC patch that
On Mon, 27 May 2002, Sheldon Hearn wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2002 15:28:44 MST, Lamont Granquist wrote:
I got non-deterministic internal compiler errors when I was trying to
compile mozilla. At the same time I was compiling gnome in another
terminal window. It only happened with mozilla,
On Mon, 13 May 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
GCC 3.1 whines about these two instances of va_arg() and generates
code which calls int 5 if they are executed.
This workaround works for me, but I don't know if this is the
correct fix so I won't commit it.
I just committed a correct fix
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 09:57:08PM +0200, Daniel Rock wrote:
- recompile libalias with -Os = NAT broken
- recompile libalias with -O = NAT works again.
I know any other optimization than -O isn't supported but this bug
(either in libalias or in gcc) should be investigated.
If you could
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you write:
found the bug: -Os compilation seems broken with gcc-3.1. I normally
[...] I know any other optimization than -O isn't supported but this bug
(either in libalias or in gcc) should be investigated.
I can narrow it down *much* further to exact small
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 07:47:42PM -0500, Loren James Rittle wrote:
I can narrow it down *much* further to exact small test cases. FYI,
there are 8 C failures in the gcc 3.1 testsuite for FreeBSD/i386:
4 involve -Os (Quite sorry I never got around to fixing them
before the
David O'Brien wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 06:05:13AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
| Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| What problems do you have with it?
|
| Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
| between sessions. Does not render HTML 4
On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 09:56, Greg Black wrote:
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
| David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
| between sessions. Does not render HTML 4 properly. Does not support
| CSS properly. Does not zoom. Does
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
| On Sun, 2002-03-17 at 09:56, Greg Black wrote:
| Yeah right. Galeon wouldn't even build on the last FreeBSD box
| I tried it on when somebody told me to try it.
|
| It compiles/works here like a charm, however, if you do have problems
| with it please send a problem
* Greg Black ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
Galeon.
Yeah right. Galeon wouldn't even build on the last FreeBSD box I
tried it on when somebody told me to try it.
Tried Skipstone? Gecko based GTK browser.
--
Thomas 'Freaky' Hurst - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT
Do you have a patch for this ?
I do not fully understand the parts of GCC involved, so I need some
time to verify my initial diagnosis and to create a patch. In other
words - not yet :)
--
Alexander Kabaev
Alex are you still workin' for a patch?
Yes, I am. But as I write before I am not familiar with this particular
part of GCC at all, so I cannot give any estimates and even promize to
produce a working patch. If some other more knowledgeable person
is feeling like beating me to it, please feel
On Sat, Mar 16, 2002 at 06:05:13AM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What problems do you have with it?
Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
between sessions. Does not render HTML 4 properly. Does not support
CSS
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use Opera 6. [...]
Please try http://www.techiegold.com/ with Opera 6.
No problem: http://www.ofug.org/~des/techiegold.png
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
Rich Wilson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What about http://www.dice.com/jobsearch/index.html
http://www.ofug.org/~des/dice.png
(the error at the top is because my proxy blocks doubleclick)
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smorgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
between sessions. Does not render HTML 4 properly. Does not support
CSS properly. Does not zoom. Does not display PNG properly.
Incorrectly ignores cache-control headers on images. The
On 2002-03-15 22:11, Kenneth Culver wrote:
#include rehash.h, see the thread we had on this a few weeks back on
-chat.
OK, I'll look, but I disagree... Mozilla runs flawlessly for me, and
renders much faster than netscape, however it loads really slow. Opera
runs nicely too, although
Joerg Wunsch wrote:
| David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
|
| Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
| between sessions. Does not render HTML 4 properly. Does not support
| CSS properly. Does not zoom. Does not display PNG properly.
| Incorrectly ignores
PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT
On Thu, Mar 14, 2002 at 06:36:05PM +0100, Jan Stocker wrote:
2) Bug is in os delivered gcc but not in port gcc.
a) port has more or less patches / os gcc has been modified
-- Didn't someone told they are the same
Jan Stocker wrote:
[ ... DWARF vs. setjmp/longjmp ... ]
A little bit... most of you argumenting about binary incompatibility
for -stable. OK... no chance to do it there, its my opinion too. But why not
doing it for current and using that most common dwarf unwinding now (for a
later ia64
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 01:37:39PM +0100, Jan Stocker wrote:
A little bit... most of you argumenting about binary incompatibility
for -stable. OK... no chance to do it there, its my opinion too. But why not
doing it for current and using that most common dwarf unwinding now (for a
There is no
I guess it's possible to change over entirely. That would
mean we would loase a.out support because the GNU tools are
becoming incapable of supporting a.out (all machines we
run on are Linux machines syndrome).
If we really wanted to avoid problems like this in the future,
we'd just scrap
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:54:59PM -0500, Kenneth Culver wrote:
At the risk of being yelled at, I have a question: Why do we still need to
support a.out? I know that a lot of people MIGHT still have some a.out
binaries lying around, but FreeBSD's default binary format has been ELF
for 3 or 4
At the risk of being yelled at, I have a question: Why do we still need to
support a.out? I know that a lot of people MIGHT still have some a.out
binaries lying around, but FreeBSD's default binary format has been ELF
for 3 or 4 years (Since 3.0-3.1 I believe). I'm not saying that we
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 05:26:37PM -0500, Kenneth Culver wrote:
At the risk of being yelled at, I have a question: Why do we still need to
support a.out? I know that a lot of people MIGHT still have some a.out
...
Rather than offer $0.02, send the patch.
Well, I was just asking if it is
Kenneth Culver wrote:
At the risk of being yelled at, I have a question: Why do we still need to
support a.out? I know that a lot of people MIGHT still have some a.out
binaries lying around, but FreeBSD's default binary format has been ELF
for 3 or 4 years (Since 3.0-3.1 I believe). I'm not
We aren't changing this for GCC 2.95 in 5-CURRENT. PEROID. There is
zero reason for subjecting users to this ABI change for what would be
gained.
If you want to do something productive, submit patches that Bmake GCC 3.1
(which move us to Dwarf2 unwinding as a product).
Oh ok, that's
At the risk of being yelled at, I have a question: Why do we still need to
support a.out? I know that a lot of people MIGHT still have some a.out
binaries lying around, but FreeBSD's default binary format has been ELF
for 3 or 4 years (Since 3.0-3.1 I believe). I'm not saying that we
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Other reasons I haven't even thought of yet 8-).
Yeah, I was just wondering if there were issues making us keep a.out stuff
in FreeBSD aside from the I wanna run 2.2.x programs issue.
Linking with third party a.out libraries.
Other reasons I haven't even thought
[ Trim the CC's a bit ]
On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:00:08PM -0800 I heard the voice of
Terry Lambert, and lo! it spake thus:
Kenneth Culver wrote:
Other reasons I haven't even thought of yet 8-).
Yeah, I was just wondering if there were issues making us keep a.out stuff
in FreeBSD
[Cc's trimmed]
Kenneth Culver wrote:
| (ttypa):{1078}% file /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin
| /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin: FreeBSD/i386 compact
|demand paged dynamically linked executable
|
| Now, if you'd like to talk Netscape into building a version
It's less slow and much more reliable than mozilla and remains the only
available browser that can access most of the sites I need to access.
That's odd, I've never had any mozilla problems. All I know is that it
doesn't crash on sites that Netscape crashes on (anything java) and for me
it
That's odd, I've never had any mozilla problems. All I know is that it
doesn't crash on sites that Netscape crashes on (anything java) and for
me it runs much faster than netscape. It loads slower, but renders pages
much faster, and I tend to load my browser once per day, and just leave
it
On Sat, 16 Mar 2002, Greg Black wrote:
[Cc's trimmed]
Kenneth Culver wrote:
| (ttypa):{1078}% file /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin
| /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin: FreeBSD/i386 compact
|demand paged dynamically linked executable
|
| Now, if
On Friday 15 March 2002 08:53 pm, Kenneth Culver wrote:
| (ttypa):{1078}% file /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin
| /usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin: FreeBSD/i386 compact
|demand paged dynamically linked executable
|
| Now, if you'd like to talk Netscape into
Culver; Matthew D. Fuller
Cc: Terry Lambert; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT
On Friday 15 March 2002 08:53 pm, Kenneth Culver wrote:
| (ttypa):{1078}% file
/usr/local/lib/netscape/communicator-4.7.us.bin
| /usr/local/lib
[Unnecessary carbon copies trimmed.]
On Fri, 15 Mar 2002 22:41:26 -0500, Brian T.Schellenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
If you mean the FreeBSD-native netscape 4.x; yes, it's perfectly
silly to run *that*.
I don't see anything silly about it. It works with all the Web sites
I care about
Brian T.Schellenberger wrote:
Well, the linux-netscape 4 is the only browser I know that can handle Java
pages on FreeBSD.
Are there others?
If you mean the FreeBSD-native netscape 4.x; yes, it's perfectly silly to run
*that*.
4.7 does this just fine, if you don't move the mouse until
Garrett Wollman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What problems do you have with it?
Slow. Eats memory. Crashes all the time. Does not save state
between sessions. Does not render HTML 4 properly. Does not support
CSS properly. Does not zoom. Does not display PNG properly.
Incorrectly ignores
301 - 400 of 669 matches
Mail list logo
