Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Wilko Bulte
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread David O'Brien
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.

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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,

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-11 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread Wilko Bulte
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread David O'Brien
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.

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread Wilko Bulte
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-07 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Max Khon
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Terry Lambert
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:

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Terry Lambert
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread David O'Brien
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

Re: How about gcj? (Re: Not committing WARNS settings...)

2002-02-06 Thread Mikhail Teterin
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