Hi,
thanks for all the comments. I will do tests with gcc-4.x and, if the
regression is still there, file a bug report upstream.
Heiko
On Saturday 10 December 2005 20:03, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Heiko Müller wrote:
> > Dear Thiemo,
> > we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian packa
Bill Allombert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality
>> > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less e
Heiko Müller wrote:
> Dear Thiemo,
> we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian package.
> For us - and probably also for other users in the scientific
> community - the "old" compiler version is still of great value.
>
> We use gcc-2.95 to compile C/C++ code with very large mathema
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 09:33:11AM +0100, Heiko Müller wrote:
> We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality
> within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t.
> compilation time and memory consumption and in many cases even fails
> to compile our cod
On Fri, Dec 09, 2005 at 04:22:37PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Heiko M?ller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality
> > within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t.
> > compilation time and memory co
Heiko Müller writes:
> We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality
> within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t.
please be more precise. Debian currently uses 4.0, and has a 4.1
prerelease in the archives (gcc-snapshot). such regressions are bes
Heiko Müller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We found that gcc-2.95 -Os produces object code of acceptable quality
> within reasonable compilation times. gcc >=3 is less efficient w.r.t.
> compilation time and memory consumption and in many cases even fails
> to compile our codes due to the very l
Dear Thiemo,
we very much appreciate your work on the gcc-2.95 debian package.
For us - and probably also for other users in the scientific
community - the "old" compiler version is still of great value.
We use gcc-2.95 to compile C/C++ code with very large mathematical
expressions generated by
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:23:43PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> I wouldn't recommend to compile new code with 2.95 just because it is
> faster. It doesn't do standard C and misses many broken constructs which
> are caught by newer compilers.
The real advantage of gcc-2.95 is that we start to know
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
> I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
> unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
> this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
> I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
> unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
> this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 21:07 +0100, Miros/law Baran wrote:
> 16.11.2005 pisze Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > Debian is staffed by volunteers who do this because they want to.
> > I, for one, appreciate very, very much what they do for me.
>
>
> Writing/maintaining software is providing a
16.11.2005 pisze Ron Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Debian is staffed by volunteers who do this because they want to.
> I, for one, appreciate very, very much what they do for me.
Writing/maintaining software is providing a service (even when
it's free). You need to listen to your customers if y
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 07:33 -0800, Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > > The situation is: gcc-2.95 is no longer needed to compile debian packages,
> > > but it is still needed for other tasks, by many people.
> >
> > By whom, and for what?
> Debian is not rushing to drop gcc 2.95, but in the long run, it's
> inevitable. Or, to put it in your words, there is a business case for
> dropping gcc 2.95 support in etch.
If current debian maintainer(s) don't want to maintain gcc-2.95 any longer,
they should probably orphan it, just like any
Dave Carrigan writes:
> I am quite sure that there are Debian *users* out there that have legacy
> code that only builds under gcc 2.95 (or more likely g++ 2.95) and they
> haven't ported it to a newer C compiler because there is no business
> case for it.
>
> Removing a package simply because th
On Wednesday 16 November 2005 12:05, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Device driver development for embedded systems? There are embedded
> > systems, including x86-based, that run kernels which fail to compile with
> > gcc >= 3.x.
>
> In that case you likely need as well an older binutils version, which
>
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> Replacement (2.6 Kernel) in the works, should be removed once 2.6 is
> stable enough:
>
>Christian T. Steigies <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> kernel-image-2.4.27-m68kBuild-Depends: gcc-2.95
> kernel-patch-2.
* Dave Carrigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:11:16 07:33 -0800]:
> I am quite sure that there are Debian *users* out there that have legacy
> code that only builds under gcc 2.95 (or more likely g++ 2.95) and they
> haven't ported it to a newer C compiler because there is no business
> case for it.
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>>>The situation is: gcc-2.95 is no longer needed to compile debian packages,
>>>but it is still needed for other tasks, by many people.
>>By whom, and for what? So far I haven't heard a specific project's
>>name
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 04:12:45PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > The situation is: gcc-2.95 is no longer needed to compile debian packages,
> > but it is still needed for other tasks, by many people.
>
> By whom, and for what? So far I haven't heard a specific project's
> name.
Debian does not
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
> >> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> >> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> >> > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> >> > maintenance of gcc 2.95?
> >>
>> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
>> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
>> > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
>> > maintenance of gcc 2.95?
>>
>> Device driver development for embe
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
> >> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> >> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> >> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> >> main
Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
[snip]
> > Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
> > probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
> > job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for
> > demonstration/
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
>
>
> > Dave Carrigan wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> >>
> >> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> >> > maintenance for etch.
> >>
> >> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justif
In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
>> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
>> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
>> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
>> maintenance of gcc 2.95?
[..]
> Also,
> Dave Carrigan wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>>
>> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
>> > maintenance for etch.
>>
>> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
>> that end users have the same
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
> I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
> unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
> this makes it IMHO a plausi
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> maintenance of
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Unacknowledged NMU for > one year, either update or remove:
> >
> >Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > gcccheckerBuild-Depends: gcc-2.95
>
> I recently filed a request to have this package removed. It is
> not maintai
Steve M. Robbins wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > Malloc debugging, #285685 suggests it is broken for > 300 days now,
> > either update or remove:
> >
> >Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > ccmalloc Build-Depends: g++-2.95 [
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> Malloc debugging, #285685 suggests it is broken for > 300 days now,
> either update or remove:
>
>Steve M. Robbins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ccmallocBuild-Depends: g++-2.95 [alpha arm i386 m68k
> mips mipsel p
Thiemo Seufer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Unacknowledged NMU for > one year, either update or remove:
>
>Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> gccchecker Build-Depends: gcc-2.95
I recently filed a request to have this package removed. It is
not maintained upstream and valgrind is a be
Dave Carrigan wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
>
> > this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> > maintenance for etch.
>
> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
> that end users have the same luxury.
T
On Nov 15, Dave Carrigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
> that end users have the same luxury.
Can you point us to some examples of such programs?
Also, are you sure that users will not just be able to install the
2.95 packages f
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:00:06PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
> maintenance for etch.
No it is not. Just because debian packages don't use 2.95 doesn't mean
that end users have the same luxury.
--
Dave Carrigan
Seattle, WA, USA
[
Hello All,
while preparing an upload of gcc-2.95 which fixes its worst problems
I wondered how many users of it are actually left. 9 packages in
unstable still declare a build dependency on gcc-2.95 or g++-2.95,
this makes it IMHO a plausible release goal to get rid of 2.95
maintenance for etch.
39 matches
Mail list logo
