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
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;
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 beca
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 experi
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
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
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 2D755
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
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
> 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 w
>
> 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 m
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 i
> 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 lik
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 ti
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
> 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 th
>
>
> > 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 pret
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
> >
> 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
>
> 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 gcc3
22 matches
Mail list logo
