Re: gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1 > packages: > > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support) As Redhat has demonstrated in the past, it is highly desirable that the distributed gcc is based on a released gcc as close as possible. If there are serious problems in gcc 3.1-as-released, work with gcc maintainers to fix them in 3.1.1. Regards, Martin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1 > > packages: > > > > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support) > > As Redhat has demonstrated in the past, it is highly desirable that > the distributed gcc is based on a released gcc as close as possible. > If there are serious problems in gcc 3.1-as-released, work with gcc > maintainers to fix them in 3.1.1. Completely seconded. I want the collection of patches that distributors ship with GCC to shrink over time, not grow... -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 08:54:06AM +0200, Martin v. Loewis wrote: > > Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > I would like to get feedback, on which alternative to base the gcc-3.1 > > > packages: > > > > > > a) 3.1 as to be released (without dwarf2 support) > > > > As Redhat has demonstrated in the past, it is highly desirable that > > the distributed gcc is based on a released gcc as close as possible. > > If there are serious problems in gcc 3.1-as-released, work with gcc > > maintainers to fix them in 3.1.1. > > Completely seconded. I want the collection of patches that > distributors ship with GCC to shrink over time, not grow... I see, I was unclear, the alternatives were hppa specific, I didn't even think of using anything else than the release ... -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [parisc-linux] gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
John David Anglin writes: > > While preparing gcc-3.1 packages I noticed many eh-related regressions > > fixed in the trunk, when dwarf2 support was added. With Dave's > > guidance I made a diff of the pa subdirectory from the trunk and > > applied it to the branch. Although many FAILS are gone, there are some > > new (diff below). > > In general, option b has much better c++ results than a). The c++ > test results are essentially identical to those with 3.2. However, > compared to the results that I have been posting for 3.2, we have > the following new failures: > > gcc.c-torture/execute/ieee/rbug.c > > g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-[0-3].f > > 20_util/allocator_members.cc execution test > 22_locale/codecvt_members_char_char.cc execution test > 22_locale/codecvt_members_wchar_t_char.cc execution test > 22_locale/ctor_copy_dtor.cc execution test > 22_locale/ctype_members_wchar_t.cc execution test > 27_io/ostream_inserter_arith.cc execution test the libstdc failures are no regressions compared to a (3.1). > It would probably be useful to compare test results for b and c. It may > be that some of the above are glibc or system problems. this is a diff of the test results for b and c. g++ is worse, the regressions for g77 and gcc are new test cases in the trunk. One new gcc regression: FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/2504-1.c, -O1 --- ../../3.1/tr/test-summary Fri May 3 12:51:46 2002 +++ test-summarySun May 5 13:59:34 2002 @@ -1,11 +1,15 @@ -LAST_UPDATED: Thu May 2 21:54:20 UTC 2002 - +LAST_UPDATED: Native configuration is hppa-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix +FAIL: g++.dg/template/friend6.C (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/template/typename2.C (test for excess errors) +FAIL: g++.dg/warn/Wunused-2.C (test for warnings, line 5) +FAIL: g++.dg/warn/effc1.C (test for warnings, line 13) +FAIL: g++.dg/warn/effc1.C (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.brendan/new3.C Execution test FAIL: g++.law/profile1.C (test for excess errors) XPASS: g++.mike/eh33.C (test for excess errors) @@ -16,70 +20,55 @@ === g++ Summary === -# of expected passes 7155 -# of unexpected failures 2 +# of expected passes 7252 +# of unexpected failures 7 # of unexpected successes 5 -# of expected failures 87 +# of expected failures 86 # of untested testcases23 # of unsupported tests 4 -/home/packages/gcc/3.1/gcc-3.1-3.1ds0/build/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version 3.1 20020502 (Debian prerelease) +/home/packages/gcc/try/gcc-3.1-3.1ds90/build/gcc/testsuite/../g++ version 3.1 20020429 (Debian experimental) === g77 tests === Running target unix -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -O0 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -O1 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -O2 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -O3 -g -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-0.f execution, -Os -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -O0 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -O1 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -O2 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -O3 -g -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-1.f execution, -Os -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -O0 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -O1 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -O2 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -O3 -g -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-2.f execution, -Os -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -O0 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -O1 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -O2 -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -O3 -g -FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/19990313-3.f execution, -Os +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O0 +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O1 +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O2 +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -O3 -g +FAIL: g77.f-torture/execute/6367.f execution, -Os === g77 Summary === -# of expected passes 1428 -# of unexpected failures 24 +# of expected passes 1618 +# of unexpected failures 8 # o
Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
Jeff Bailey writes:
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2002 at 12:44:45AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>
> > Considering the "confusion" of having gcc272 as default C compiler
> > and egcs as default C++ compiler in slink and the arch by arch
> > switch to new compiler versions, I would propose to switch all
> > architectures at once, if that's possible. So maybe it's reasonable
> > to: upload 3.1 after the woody release, make it the default with the
> > gcc-3.1.1 release? Is this too late for the hurd?
>
> Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for hurd-i386?
> Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd like to file
> the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it updated and need to
> know if I should tell them gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.1.
did somebody think about the C++ transition? I am not sure how to
handle this correctly. One approach would be to require the libstdc++
ABI ("v3") included in the package name (and soname?) of each C++
library. OTOH we did the switch between previous C++ version in place
as well ...
> Note that we haven't got a gcc in the archive yet, so if you choose
> 3.1, we probably won't build 3.0 officially.
There seems to be agreement to drop 3.0 for many architectures.
> We don't plan on uploading gcc-2.95 at this point. If it works
> better to switch all at once to 3.1.1 that's fine too.
gcc-2.95 definitely will be in woody+1, because gpc isn't available
for 3.0 and 3.1. Same for libg++ and chill, but these two probably
could be dropped.
Matthias
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Norton AntiVirus detected a virus in a message you sent. The inf ected attachment was deleted.
Recipient of the infected attachment: Jan Spurny\Inbox Subject of the message: FREE! One or more attachments were deleted Attachment target.pif was Deleted for the following reasons: Virus [EMAIL PROTECTED] was found. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: gcc-3.1 for hurd-i386
On Sun, May 05, 2002 at 03:01:48PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > Have you come to a decision on what you want to happen for
> > hurd-i386? Now that unstable doesn't push into Woody anymore, I'd
> > like to file the bug report to request gcc-defaults to get it
> > updated and need to know if I should tell them gcc-3.0 or gcc-3.1.
> did somebody think about the C++ transition? I am not sure how to
> handle this correctly. One approach would be to require the
> libstdc++ ABI ("v3") included in the package name (and soname?) of
> each C++ library. OTOH we did the switch between previous C++
> version in place as well ...
That's the hassle we've been trying to avoid. If we can go straight
to 3.1 (libstdc++4 package) and avoid a massive compile, I'd like
that.
I'm biased, BTW, in favour of in-place recompile. Aside from apt, I
don't think there's any core system utils that are C++. We call the
distribution unstable for a reason. Apt shouldn't be too bad, because
it doesn't depend on other C++ libraries.
> > We don't plan on uploading gcc-2.95 at this point. If it works
> > better to switch all at once to 3.1.1 that's fine too.
> gcc-2.95 definitely will be in woody+1, because gpc isn't available
> for 3.0 and 3.1. Same for libg++ and chill, but these two probably
> could be dropped.
Our new glibc doesn't have any of the logic to handle both gcc-2.x and
gcc-3.x. Is there any way to build gpc-2.95 and not build the
packages for all the rest? What do the targets that are current gcc-3
do?
--
One of the great things about books is sometimes
there are some fantastic pictures.
-- George W. Bush
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [parisc-linux] gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
> this is a diff of the test results for b and c. g++ is worse, the I think all the new g++ fails are in new tests. So, I don't think g++ is actually worse. > regressions for g77 and gcc are new test cases in the trunk. One new > gcc regression: Yes, gcc.c-torture/compile/2504-1.c is a regression. It's good to see the g77 fails go away. > Ada doesn't build: > ../../xgcc -B../../ -c -g -O2 -g -O2 -W -Wall -gnatpg -I. > -I/home/packages/gcc/try/gcc-3.1-3.1ds90/src/gcc/ada s-taprop.adb > s-taprop.adb:48:12: warning: no entities of "Os_Primitives" are referenced > make[4]: *** [s-taprop.o] Error 1 > make[4]: Leaving directory > `/home/packages/gcc/try/gcc-3.1-3.1ds90/build/gcc/ada/rts' The enclosed patch fixes the compilation error. However, Florian hasn't installed it. I'll try and get an update on its status. Dave -- J. David Anglin [EMAIL PROTECTED] National Research Council of Canada (613) 990-0752 (FAX: 952-6605) >From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Apr 28 16:44:10 EDT 2002 Received: from nrcmrddc1.imsb.nrc.ca (nrcmrddc1.imsb.nrc.ca [132.246.56.35]) by hiauly1.hia.nrc.ca (8.12.0.Beta16/8.12.0.Beta16) with ESMTP id g3SKi9FN016414 for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: by nrcmrddc1.imsb.nrc.ca with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:44:05 -0400 Received: from mail.enyo.de (cygnus-ext.enyo.de [212.9.189.162]) by nrcmrdbh1.imsb.nrc.ca with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id JT1Y1AT2; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:44:03 -0400 Received: from [212.9.189.171] (helo=deneb.enyo.de) by mail.enyo.de with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #2) id 171vWf-0001yK-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:44:05 +0200 Received: from fw by deneb.enyo.de with local (Exim 3.34 #4) id 171vWc-0005rb-00; Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:44:02 +0200 Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> From: Florian Weimer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: John David Anglin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: ada/6495: no entities of "Os_Primitives" are referenced Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 16:44:02 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Status: RO "John David Anglin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >> > s-taprop.adb:48:12: warning: no entities of "Os_Primitives" are referenced >> >> Could you please look at the file s-taprop.adb in the gcc/ada/rts and >> check which version it is? After the copyright string, there should >> be a comment like this one: >> >> -- This is a POSIX-like version of this package > > Says > > -- This is a no tasking version of this package Thanks. Could you try the following patch, please? --- 5ntaprop.adb.~1.3.~ Sun Mar 17 09:08:21 2002 +++ 5ntaprop.adbSun Apr 28 22:42:59 2002 @@ -45,9 +45,6 @@ -- used for Ada_Task_Control_Block -- Task_ID -with System.OS_Primitives; --- used for Delay_Modes - with System.Error_Reporting; -- used for Shutdown @@ -55,7 +52,6 @@ use System.Tasking; use System.Parameters; - use System.OS_Primitives; - -- Stack_Guard -- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [parisc-linux] gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
John David Anglin writes: > Thanks. Could you try the following patch, please? yes, allows the bootstrap. > --- 5ntaprop.adb.~1.3.~ Sun Mar 17 09:08:21 2002 > +++ 5ntaprop.adb Sun Apr 28 22:42:59 2002 > @@ -45,9 +45,6 @@ > -- used for Ada_Task_Control_Block > -- Task_ID > > -with System.OS_Primitives; > --- used for Delay_Modes > - > with System.Error_Reporting; > -- used for Shutdown > > @@ -55,7 +52,6 @@ > > use System.Tasking; > use System.Parameters; > - use System.OS_Primitives; > > - > -- Stack_Guard -- > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [parisc-linux] gcc-3.? compiler for hppa (3.1, 3.1+dwarf2, 3.2cvs20020429?)
Matthias Klose wrote: > Sm9obiBEYXZpZCBBbmdsaW4gd3JpdGVzOg0KPiA+IFdoaWxlIHByZXBhcmluZyBnY2MtMy4x > IHBhY2thZ2VzIEkgbm90aWNlZCBtYW55IGVoLXJlbGF0ZWQgcmVncmVzc2lvbnMNCj4gPiBm ... Matthias (and others), base64 encoded email doesn't archive well: http://lists.parisc-linux.org/pipermail/parisc-linux/2002-May/016205.html Please avoid if you can. thanks, grant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
