Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated into FSF CVS
Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated into FSF CVS
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:53:18PM -0700, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
incorporated into
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
22 matches
Mail list logo