Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-02 Thread David O'Brien
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 watchi

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-02 Thread Peter Wemm
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,

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-02 Thread Maxim Sobolev
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. > > Plea

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 c

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Sean Chittenden
> > > 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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Joe Marcus Clarke
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 upgr

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Scott Long
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David Leimbach
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David Leimbach
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] ... On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > >> Matthew Jacob wrote: >>> > Yes, as best as

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David W. Chapman Jr.
> 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. [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBS

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
> 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,

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Peter Wemm
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 > > > depend

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Jos Backus
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
> > 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 easi

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Scott Long
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 defau

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Joe Marcus Clarke
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Alexander Kabaev
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 chan

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
> > 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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Joe Marcus Clarke
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Will Andrews
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 w

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Peter Wemm
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 cha

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 ag

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Peter Wemm
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David O'Brien
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, wh

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 pr

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Will Andrews
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Martin Blapp
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 f

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Alexander Kabaev
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 an

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David O'Brien
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 Unsubscri

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 peopl

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Alexander Kabaev
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

Re: HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Matthew Jacob
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 com

HEADS UP: GCC 3.2 in progress

2002-09-01 Thread Alexander Kabaev
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 that