John Plocher wrote:
> From my 1:1 offline discussion with Stefan:
>
> Darren J Moffat wrote:
>> I'm derailing this case on the grounds that it is not obvious and
>> also the volume of email traffic involved in trying go get
>> clarifications.
>>
>> The non obvious parts to me are the following:
>>
>> djm-0 Why we need a gcc4 subdir in /usr/gnu/
>
> Because the submitter feels that there may be subtle
> and/or unintended differences between binutils 2.15
> (found in snv_99) and binutils 2.17 (used by gcc4 and
> proposed here) that are impossible to determine without
> performing a complete set of regression tests.
>
> (2004/742 marks binutils 2.15/gcc3 as "External")
>
> This is an issue in the submitters view because the
> shipping gcc3 uses binutils 2.15, and is used to build
> S10; replacing binutils 2.15 out from under it and
> replacing it with 2.17 would require some large but
> unspecified regression testing of the gcc3-built S10
> binaries.
Is this project seeking Patch binding on Solaris 10? (If so, why?) If
not, then this issue is moot, since I believe only Solaris 10 systems
are used to build Solaris 10 itself. (I.e. the build machines do not
run Nevada.)
>
> (left unstated is why the combo of OpenSolaris, gcc3 and
> binutils 2.whatever has any bearing at all on building the
> S10 sources...)
No longer unstated, although unanswered, per my question above.
>
>>
>> I want to see the documentation that shows exactly what versions of
>> GCC and GNU binutils work together (I looked and couldn't find it).
>
> I /believe/ they ALL are intended to work well together; the only
> concern is regression testing to find subtle and/or unexpected bugs
> to make the transition from gcc3/binutils2.15 to gcc3/binutils2.17
> easier.
IMO, project teams should not invent new, and IMO compromising,
architectures simply to avoid test burdens. This sounds like the cart
driving the horse, to me at least.
I strongly suspect that if we can eliminate the S10 issue, then we can
also eliminate the need for a separate binutils delivery for gcc4.
We've already heard from a gcc maintainer stating that the interfaces
involved are considered a Stable (or Committed) interface by the
upstream Gnu maintainers.
-- Garrett
