On Mar 21, 2006, at 12:34 PM, Bradley Lucier wrote:
I'm curious about whether any of the changes recently proposed to
clean up the x86-darwin port can be applied to the 64-bit PowerPC
darwin compiler;
Like what? I haven't really seen many cleanups that were x86/darwin-
specific
I'm getting the feeling that gcc on ppc64 darwin may become
something of an orphan.
Note sure what you mean here, but these ppc64 results are no worse
than the ppc(32) results for Darwin. Did you look at the failures?
For example, here's your results:
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 10807
# of unexpected failures 1287
# of expected failures 67
# of unresolved testcases 14
# of unsupported tests 126
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 355
# of unexpected failures 1576
# of expected failures 7
# of unsupported tests 323
And here's my results, on 10.4.3 with CVS odcctools (which has
cctools-590.36/ld64-26.0.81)
=== g++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 9814
# of unexpected failures 1406
# of expected failures 65
# of unresolved testcases 77
# of unsupported tests 124
=== libstdc++ Summary ===
# of expected passes 354
# of unexpected failures 1589
# of expected failures 7
# of unsupported tests 323
This should inspire you with confidence that ppc32-darwin is as bad,
if not worse, than ppc64-darwin. Many of the c++ failures are of the
form:
/opt/odcctools/bin/ld: Undefined symbols:
__Unwind_GetIPInfo
collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
A fix for this was posted by Eric C. (<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
patches/2006-02/msg02041.html>), but never committed. Someone will
have to decide Real Soon Now what the expected binary compatibility
of GCC trunk vs. Mac OS X's libgcc should/will be. Andrew has filed
this as <http://gcc.gnu.org/PR26792>
What is the prior art for other OS vendors that ship a shared libgcc?
Shantonu