On Sun, Sep 06, 2009 at 04:03:28PM +0100, Neil Cafferkey wrote:
>
> No offence, but this proposal strikes me as slightly lazy. In other words,
> I think these bugs should be identified instead of being "fixed" by
> declaring "your compiler is too old".
In this case, we weren't speaking about bugs
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 03:12:14PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Robert Millan
> Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 23:26:11 +0200
>
> > David et al, can we agree on a minimal version of GCC that we should
> > recommend?
> >
> > For mentioning in the INSTALL file only. I assume nobody's interested in
>
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:21:55PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:23:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
> > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:12:20 +0200
> >
> > > Even if gcc<4.2 seem to work ok I think we shouldn't waste resources
> > > on
From: Robert Millan
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 23:26:11 +0200
> David et al, can we agree on a minimal version of GCC that we should
> recommend?
>
> For mentioning in the INSTALL file only. I assume nobody's interested in
> gcc 2.95.
I think gcc-4.1.x, maybe specifically gcc-4.1.3 is a reasonable
On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 11:01:32PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:07:04PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
> >> wrote:
> >> >
>
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:58 PM, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:07:04PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > +AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether gcc is recent enough], grub_cv_cc_recent, [
>> > + Â CFLAGS=
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 06:07:04PM +0200, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> >
> > +AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether gcc is recent enough], grub_cv_cc_recent, [
> > + CFLAGS=
> > + AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[
> > +#if defined
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:23:01PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
> Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:12:20 +0200
>
> > Even if gcc<4.2 seem to work ok I think we shouldn't waste resources
> > on it and officially declare a minimal requirement ("you're free to go
> > un
From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 19:02:39 +0200
> Even if it's not so I still think dropping support for old building
> environments is a good thing since it decreases bug possibilities
> and so maintainance work too.
It also decreases your testing base.
I think this
From: "Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko"
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2009 16:12:20 +0200
> Even if gcc<4.2 seem to work ok I think we shouldn't waste resources
> on it and officially declare a minimal requirement ("you're free to go
> under requirement but don't post bugreports if you do")
You're making it su
Hi,
Could you post a small test problem that illustrate the bug ?
Yves Blusseau reported to me that modules compiled with gcc-4.0 based
Apple's CC failed whereas the ones compiled with gcc-4.2 worked well. As
MacOSX is the only OS I'm aware of which ships pre-4.2 gcc by default (the
Unfort
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:19 PM, Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Bean wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
>>> Serbinenko wrote:
It looks like grub2's codebase triggers bugs in old
On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 03:44:18PM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
>
> +AC_CACHE_CHECK([whether gcc is recent enough], grub_cv_cc_recent, [
> + CFLAGS=
> + AC_COMPILE_IFELSE([AC_LANG_PROGRAM([[
> +#if defined (__GNUC__) && (__GNUC__ < 4 || __GNUC_MINOR__ < 2)
> +#error Use at least
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:12 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Bean wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
>> Serbinenko wrote:
>>> It looks like grub2's codebase triggers bugs in old compiler. I don't
>>> feel like we should support th
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Bean wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
> Serbinenko wrote:
>> It looks like grub2's codebase triggers bugs in old compiler. I don't
>> feel like we should support these compilers at all. Hence this patch.
>> If someone wants to use older com
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 9:44 PM, Vladimir 'phcoder'
Serbinenko wrote:
> It looks like grub2's codebase triggers bugs in old compiler. I don't
> feel like we should support these compilers at all. Hence this patch.
> If someone wants to use older compiler he's free to patch this check
> out but this
It looks like grub2's codebase triggers bugs in old compiler. I don't
feel like we should support these compilers at all. Hence this patch.
If someone wants to use older compiler he's free to patch this check
out but this way he's aware that we don't support gcc prior to 4.2
--
Regards
Vladimir '
17 matches
Mail list logo