On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
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??
I said it was
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:17:25AM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
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
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:17:25AM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
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
On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 06:04 PM, Terry Lambert wrote:
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary
compatability between point releases, with another point release
in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one
behind to standardise upon.
There will hopefully always be
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:41:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I thought it was the general consensus that the 3.1 version of
the compiler was broken, and generated bad code, and that the 3.2
compiler had a lot of these problems corrected, but destroyed
binary compatability with 3.1.
It is *that* simple.
yep.
Rather than bitch that 3.1.1 sucks; we should thanking the GCC
Steering
Committee that after much thought they were willing to take the
vendors'
needs into account. I am not sure FreeBSD would have done the same.
I never said it sucked... I think the ABI
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
Hi!
What's going on wrong here?
GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
alex@zerogravity ~ $ cat test.cc
using namespace std;
#include iostream
#include strstream
alex@zerogravity ~ $ c++ -pipe -g -fpic -DPIC -Wall -c test.cc
In file included from /usr/include/g++/iostream.h:31,
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
24 matches
Mail list logo
