On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:17:25AM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > > > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
>
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 02:17:25AM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
> > > by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
> >
> >
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
> > by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
>
> How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
I said it was
Lamont Granquist wrote:
> 5.0 will be a beta and will not be ready for production use right?
No. But no one will use it anyway, because no one trusts a .0
version of anything.
> I'm not sure exactly how FreeBSD would be "pulling a redhat" by putting in
> a development snapshot if the 5.0 relea
David O'Brien wrote:
> > >It was my understanding that FreeBSD 5.0 release was not going
> > >to be GCC 3.3 (because GCC 3.3 would not be released in time for
> > >FreeBSD to not be "pulling a RedHat" if they shipped a beta and
> > >called it 3.3) , might be GCC 3.2, and was currently down-rev
> >
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote:
> It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy
> by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out.
How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today??
"archaic" does apply however.
Why the fsck can't people come up t
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
> 3.3.0 will be released before FreeBSD 5.1. It is my advice to
> FreeBSD'ville that we go with a GCC 3.3 snapshot for FBSD 5.0 and a GCC
> 3.3.0 release for FBSD 5.1. That way we can get the new features of 3.3
> into our 5.x branch. AND get bug fixes
>
> It is *that* simple.
>
yep.
> Rather than bitch that 3.1.1 "sucks"; we should thanking the GCC
> Steering
> Committee that after much thought they were willing to take the
> vendors'
> needs into account. I am not sure FreeBSD would have done the same.
>
I never said it sucked... I think
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 07:41:24AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >I thought it was the general consensus that the 3.1 version of
> >the compiler was broken, and generated bad code, and that the 3.2
> >compiler had a lot of these problems corrected, but destroyed
> >binary compatability with 3.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
> > I guess the fear is that, if they are willing to destroy binary
> > compatability between point releases, with another point release
> > in the wings, it would be risky to pick the point release one
> > behind to standardise upon.
> >
>
> There will hopefully
On Saturday, August 31, 2002, at 06:04 PM, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
>>> Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
>>> planning a 3.3. 8-).
>>>
>>> And comments on this list to that effect.
>>
>> I don't follow. The GCC group branches previous to a re
David O'Brien wrote:
> > Because rather than leaving it alone for a while, they are already
> > planning a 3.3. 8-).
> >
> > And comments on this list to that effect.
>
> I don't follow. The GCC group branches previous to a release and makes
> an initial + point releases from it.
I thought it
On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 03:06:08PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > > In general, though, the answer is that "3.1 sucks and 2.9x
> > > does not". 8-).
> >
> > Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experi
David O'Brien wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > In general, though, the answer is that "3.1 sucks and 2.9x
> > does not". 8-).
>
> Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experience.
>
> > Use at least GCC 3.2, if you feel compelled to use a buggy
> >
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 05:55:18PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
> In general, though, the answer is that "3.1 sucks and 2.9x
> does not". 8-).
Feh. 3.1's optimizer is less buggy in my experience.
> Use at least GCC 3.2, if you feel compelled to use a buggy
> non-maintenance release level GCC;
is the correct header.
This is not a bug
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 08:21 PM, Alexander Langer wrote:
> Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
>>> What's going on wrong here?
>>> GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
>> Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
>>
Alexander Langer wrote:
> Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > > What's going on wrong here?
> > > GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
> > Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
> > the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
> > header files from the
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 03:21:39AM +0200, Alexander Langer wrote:
>
> I felt like using -CURRENT's 3.1, as it is expected.
> Well, I'll try to look if a new world fixes the problem, though I bet it
> won't.
>
rm -rf /usr/include/g++
Now, build your new world.
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send m
Thus spake Terry Lambert ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> > What's going on wrong here?
> > GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
> Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
> the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
> header files from the previous compiler version.
The -ST
Alexander Langer wrote:
> What's going on wrong here?
> GCC 2.9x can compile this, 3.1 cannot:
Delete and reinstall your header files. They must match
the compiler you are using, and you must not have stale
header files from the previous compiler version.
In general, though, the answer is that
> There are, but they are in:
> /usr/include/g++/backward/iostream.h
> /usr/include/g++/backward/strstream.h
They are in different place => they are different. Alexander, remove
/usr/include/g++ before your next installworld.
This is FAQ.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMA
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 08:24:28PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:10:06 +0200
> Alexander Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > alex@zerogravity ~ $ c++ -pipe -g -fpic -DPIC -Wall -c test.cc
> > In file included from /usr/include/g++/iostream.h:31,
> >
On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 02:10:06 +0200
Alexander Langer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> alex@zerogravity ~ $ c++ -pipe -g -fpic -DPIC -Wall -c test.cc
> In file included from /usr/include/g++/iostream.h:31,
> from /usr/include/g++/strstream.h:32,
^^^
23 matches
Mail list logo
