On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 10:21:13PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
> > > Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again.
> > > This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch,
> > > and update the Mozilla people.
> >
> > My understanding from watchi
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
> Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> >
> > I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> > about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
> > this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
> > unexpected delays,
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
>
> I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
> this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
> unexpected delays, so please be patient.
>
> Plea
Thank you.
Let's move on.
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Scott Long wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >
> > Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> > experience.
>
> Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I c
> > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> >
> > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
> >
> > 3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > > > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > > > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > > > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
> > >
> > > The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgr
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 05:12:43PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> [...]
>
>
> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> experience.
Ok, I apologize for calling you a 'troll'. I certainly didn't mean
it in the context of what's going on in other mailing lists, and it
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
>> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
>> experience.
>
> I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
> troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
>
I wouldn't call it trolling
Hey lets find a way to keep this goddamned thread going..
huh can we... yeah... please... I love hitting delete!!!
Keep it up and we'll be as cool as [EMAIL PROTECTED] ...
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
>> Matthew Jacob wrote:
>>>
> Yes, as best as
> Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
> experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
--
David W. Chapman Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBS
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
> >
> > > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > > >
> > > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> > >
> > > To quote Robert Watson:
> > >
> > > > My list basically consists of:
> > > > General
> > > > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms,
Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> > > Yes, as best as I can.
> > >
> > > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
> >
> > To quote Robert Watson:
> >
> > > My list basically consists of:
> > > General
> > > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > > depend
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > dependencies
Note: I have tried bringing
> > Yes, as best as I can.
> >
> > But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
>
> To quote Robert Watson:
>
> > My list basically consists of:
> > General
> > - GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
> > dependencies
> > - Switch in sysinstall to easi
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> >
> > Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
>
> Yes, as best as I can.
>
> But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
> My list basically consists of:
> General
> - GEOM as defau
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
> Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> > again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> > a patch, and
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
> again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
> a patch, and update the Mozilla people.
>
> Joe
Why would that chan
>
> Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> > this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> > just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
>
> The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We
> get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk
> is _well_ mitigated.
>
> Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It w
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
> product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
> assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
re@ have been practically begging for it.
> I'm *not* arguing against the cha
These arguments are all quite familiar- I'm not really moved one way or
the other.
The point here is that major changes need to be very visible on a
product's schedule. You can argue that it isn't a major change- but I'd
assert that any toolchain change *is* a major change.
I'm *not* arguing ag
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
> at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
> firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
> Go back to sleep.
Would you rather that we ship with
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> > This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
>
> Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
> it now than later, wh
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal.
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
On
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
> Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> > development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> > working pr
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work.
I also dislike the apparent
Hi,
> totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
> this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
> just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 -> 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease -> 3.2 is a little step which f
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
> development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
> working productively for around a month due to various this thats an
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't
> recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
To Unsubscri
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> > wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
>
> This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3
Well, actually, I *wasn't* asking for an upgrade.
>From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively for around a month due to various this thats and
the others). If that's what peopl
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug
that changes the API so it couldn't be
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
> wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
fixed in 3.2.
GCC
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
> about ten minutes. This task should not take long to com
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please respond immediately if you feel that
36 matches
Mail list logo
