Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 8/20/2013 2:03 AM, LMH wrote:



Dmitrii, thank you for the thoughtful response. I really am looking for
information here.




If you're looking for the reason that gcc-3 was removed from your
computer during your recent upgrade, I believe that question has been
answered by Chris.  If you're wondering why gcc-3 is not offered
as an alternate package through Cygwin now, I have offered you the
reasoning behind the current state of things.  In addition, I've
provided you with ways of "resurrecting" gcc-3 on your system if
you wish to pursue that.  One of these ways should be enough to
restore you to a state where you can use gcc-3 in the cases you
want to do so.  Beyond that, I'm not sure what your question is.
If you have a specific one, go ahead and ask it.  A continued
discussion of how and why gcc-3 is useful for you isn't a real
interesting read for most on this list IMO.  Let's see if we can
bring this thread to its logical end.

--
Larry

_

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[LMH]

Dima Pasechnik wrote:

On 20 August 2013 03:13, LMH  wrote:

I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some
documentation to get that done.

The fact the gcc-3/g77 are old means nothing to me. There are still millions
of lines of fortran77 code out there that are being used. There is just no
reason to spend years of man hours to update the code and result in new code
that gives the exact numerical answers as the old code. I already work 80,
and sometimes even 100 hours in a week developing new material. The less
time I have to spend on projects that already work as is, the better. The
last time I checked, important linux distros used in industry (Cent, Suse,
etc) all still included legacy gcc3 development support. If you think about
the investment in gcc3 based code that is out there, and the time that could
be required to port that to gcc4, keeping the legacy support makes allot of
sense.

When gcc4 first came out, I tried moving. I was able to get my code to
compile and link after making allot of changes to the header files, but I
got different numerical answers on my data for some cases. This is the real
bugbear.


gfortran is not considered a bugbear since about gcc 4.1. Its
developers are committed to considering
any standard Fortran 77 code that does not compile or
gives wrong results on gfortran a bug.



When you change compilers, everything has to be QC'd again. I tried
again with gcc4.3, and found again that many header files had changed and it
took quite a bit of work to get it to compile. When I did get it to work, I
now got the same numerical answers as with gcc3. This underscores some of
the issues that can happen when you change compilers, especially if the
compiler is a relatively new version. Imagine some of the disasters that
could have happened if I based research on the incorrect values from
software compiled under the early versions of gcc4!!! There have also been
allot of issues with folks trying to compile f77 code under gfortran.

In many cases, there is just no good reason to move compilers when you have
mature src code that has been optimized and QC'd for 30+ years. Why would
you want to put ANY time into maintaining such code?


I used to write a lot of Fortran 4 code back in 198*ies...
Should I demand an IBM-360 Fortran 4 compiler being
distributed? :-)


That is not a
rhetorical question, so if there are some good reasons to move to newer
versions of gcc, I would be interested in hearing the arguments. Putting in
time to revise code and end up with the identical assembler is not something
I am all that interested in.


Identical assembler? Come on, do you want your executables optimized for i486 ?
Then yes, you might want to us gcc3. :-)
Also it's obvious that most of Fortran 77 code had been developed not
on g77, but
using other compilers, mostly dead by now. After all, being a cross-compiler,
g77 is mostly a quick hack.

Dmitrii


Dmitrii, thank you for the thoughtful response. I really am looking for 
information here. Allot of the fortran code that I use was actually 
written in the 70's (on punch cards), so those systems are long gone as 
well. I used Absoft for a while as well before moving to cygwin with 
gcc. Since this code is so old, most of it is very, very, serial and 
very simple (primitive data types, conditionals, and do loops). For such 
simple code, I don't imagine that the assembler coming out of a compiler 
today is all that different than it was a long time ago. Of course I 
could be very wrong, and that is why I ask questions.


My only point about gfortran 4.0 was to illustrate that moving to a new 
compiler can result in unforeseen problems. That can mean expending 
resources to fix a self created problem. Just try go to get a corporate 
IT director to migrate to a new OS version and you'll get a 10 hour 
litany of everything that is likely to go wrong and how much it will 
cost to fix it. I have associates at very big companies that are still 
using Cent4. Why? Because everything they do works on Cent4, so why wade 
into the mire of an upgrade? An OS is a different level of messy than a 
compiler, but the principle is the same. The header files are never 
going to change on gcc3. Everything I have that compiles on gcc3 now 
will always compile on gcc3. I can't say the the same for gcc4. I do 
have gcc4 installed and use it all the time. I just don't use it for 
everything. I have done extensive testing and all of my older stuff runs 
just as fast when built with gcc3 as when built with gcc4. If there 
comes a point where gcc3 based apps will no longer be compatible with 
more modern runtime components, or something like that, that that is 
another story.


Stable code that does not require allot of maintenance is a beautiful 
thing. Maybe it's time that I updated everything to gcc4, but I am 
reluctant to spend a month or more to do that when it's not clear to me 
what the benefits are. I know that g77 isn't the best compiler for 
for

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[Dima Pasechnik]

On 20 August 2013 03:13, LMH  wrote:
> I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some
> documentation to get that done.
>
> The fact the gcc-3/g77 are old means nothing to me. There are still millions
> of lines of fortran77 code out there that are being used. There is just no
> reason to spend years of man hours to update the code and result in new code
> that gives the exact numerical answers as the old code. I already work 80,
> and sometimes even 100 hours in a week developing new material. The less
> time I have to spend on projects that already work as is, the better. The
> last time I checked, important linux distros used in industry (Cent, Suse,
> etc) all still included legacy gcc3 development support. If you think about
> the investment in gcc3 based code that is out there, and the time that could
> be required to port that to gcc4, keeping the legacy support makes allot of
> sense.
>
> When gcc4 first came out, I tried moving. I was able to get my code to
> compile and link after making allot of changes to the header files, but I
> got different numerical answers on my data for some cases. This is the real
> bugbear.

gfortran is not considered a bugbear since about gcc 4.1. Its
developers are committed to considering
any standard Fortran 77 code that does not compile or
gives wrong results on gfortran a bug.


> When you change compilers, everything has to be QC'd again. I tried
> again with gcc4.3, and found again that many header files had changed and it
> took quite a bit of work to get it to compile. When I did get it to work, I
> now got the same numerical answers as with gcc3. This underscores some of
> the issues that can happen when you change compilers, especially if the
> compiler is a relatively new version. Imagine some of the disasters that
> could have happened if I based research on the incorrect values from
> software compiled under the early versions of gcc4!!! There have also been
> allot of issues with folks trying to compile f77 code under gfortran.
>
> In many cases, there is just no good reason to move compilers when you have
> mature src code that has been optimized and QC'd for 30+ years. Why would
> you want to put ANY time into maintaining such code?

I used to write a lot of Fortran 4 code back in 198*ies...
Should I demand an IBM-360 Fortran 4 compiler being
distributed? :-)

> That is not a
> rhetorical question, so if there are some good reasons to move to newer
> versions of gcc, I would be interested in hearing the arguments. Putting in
> time to revise code and end up with the identical assembler is not something
> I am all that interested in.
>
Identical assembler? Come on, do you want your executables optimized for i486 ?
Then yes, you might want to us gcc3. :-)
Also it's obvious that most of Fortran 77 code had been developed not
on g77, but
using other compilers, mostly dead by now. After all, being a cross-compiler,
g77 is mostly a quick hack.

Dmitrii

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[Christopher Faylor]

On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 06:43:39PM -0400, LMH wrote:
>Thanks for the information. I am tying to get the packages using the 
>Time Machine, but all I am getting is an error, "unable to get 
>setup.ini" from the different ftp addresses I have tried. I sent an 
>email to the link at the bottom of the page, so hopefully they will be 
>able to help me with that.
>
>I am interested in whether or not there is some good reason for not 
>using gcc3 anymore, but perhaps this is outside the bounds of this list.
>
>I would also like to know why setup-x86.exe is configured to find and 
>physically remove the gcc3 packages.

You had gcc installed.  The next version of gcc is gcc-4.7.3-1 so the
old gcc-3.whatever version got deleted, as always, and the new version
was installed.

cgf

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[LMH]

Thanks for the information. I am tying to get the packages using the 
Time Machine, but all I am getting is an error, "unable to get 
setup.ini" from the different ftp addresses I have tried. I sent an 
email to the link at the bottom of the page, so hopefully they will be 
able to help me with that.


I am interested in whether or not there is some good reason for not 
using gcc3 anymore, but perhaps this is outside the bounds of this list.


I would also like to know why setup-x86.exe is configured to find and 
physically remove the gcc3 packages. It's like someone decided, "you're 
not allowed to have those anymore, so we are going to take them away". 
Since the compiler bin was already labeled gcc-3/g77-3, why would it 
have been a problem to leave the the bin files where they were? It 
doesn't appear as if they would have caused a problem. My make files 
were already configured to point to gcc-3 and not to whatever "which 
gcc" would return.


Someone always has to decide how these things will work, and I assume 
that is not easy in all instances. Still, I would expect there to be a 
very good reason why someone would go to the bother of trolling around 
in someone's file system and get rid of things that the user put there 
intentionally. If there isn't a compelling reason, I would find that 
rather odd and worth some discussion.


LMH


Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:

On 8/19/2013 3:13 PM, LMH wrote:

I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some
documentation to get that done.


I don't have a direct pointer for you but I'm sure you can find something
while looking around the net.  gcc.gnu.org might be the best place to get
some basic info about building gcc though.  Of course, there's no reason
you can't just grab the old Cygwin source package and try to build it from
there.  But unless that process intrigues you, I'd recommend skipping the
extra effort and just installing the package from the "Cygwin Time
Machine".




Was there some particular reason to physically remove the gcc-3 bin
from my
cygwin install? What would have been the harm in leaving it there,
since I
already had it installed? I think that many cygwin users would find it
useful to have the gcc3 packages included in the cygwin package manager,
even if they are in the obsolete section.


The Cygwin package for gcc-3 is no longer supported.  gcc-3 hasn't been
supported by the gcc folks for quite a while (I believe the last
release by them was back in 2005).  Cygwin delivered it as a package
for quite a while after that simply because 'setup.exe' required
it to build.  But this has subsequently changed so support for it has
since been dropped.  As I mentioned, there is a separate service that
Peter Castro maintains called the "Cygwin Time Machine".  You can find
older versions of Cygwin and its packages through this service.
Everything available through that service is no longer supported by Cygwin
or this list of course.


If the packages still exist and can be installed manually, I would
love to
know where to find the packages and documentation. If I have to build it
from src, that is fine to, but some documentation would really be helpful
there as well.


Again, I'd recommend just pulling what you want from the "Cygwin Time
Machine" if you just want the binary packages.  See:



Of course, if you do want the sources, you can grab those from the same
place.



--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 8/19/2013 3:13 PM, LMH wrote:

I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some
documentation to get that done.


I don't have a direct pointer for you but I'm sure you can find something
while looking around the net.  gcc.gnu.org might be the best place to get
some basic info about building gcc though.  Of course, there's no reason
you can't just grab the old Cygwin source package and try to build it from
there.  But unless that process intrigues you, I'd recommend skipping the
extra effort and just installing the package from the "Cygwin Time Machine".




Was there some particular reason to physically remove the gcc-3 bin from my
cygwin install? What would have been the harm in leaving it there, since I
already had it installed? I think that many cygwin users would find it
useful to have the gcc3 packages included in the cygwin package manager,
even if they are in the obsolete section.


The Cygwin package for gcc-3 is no longer supported.  gcc-3 hasn't been
supported by the gcc folks for quite a while (I believe the last
release by them was back in 2005).  Cygwin delivered it as a package
for quite a while after that simply because 'setup.exe' required
it to build.  But this has subsequently changed so support for it has
since been dropped.  As I mentioned, there is a separate service that
Peter Castro maintains called the "Cygwin Time Machine".  You can find
older versions of Cygwin and its packages through this service.
Everything available through that service is no longer supported by Cygwin
or this list of course.


If the packages still exist and can be installed manually, I would love to
know where to find the packages and documentation. If I have to build it
from src, that is fine to, but some documentation would really be helpful
there as well.


Again, I'd recommend just pulling what you want from the "Cygwin Time
Machine" if you just want the binary packages.  See:



Of course, if you do want the sources, you can grab those from the same
place.

--
Larry

_

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[LMH]

I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some 
documentation to get that done.


The fact the gcc-3/g77 are old means nothing to me. There are still 
millions of lines of fortran77 code out there that are being used. There 
is just no reason to spend years of man hours to update the code and 
result in new code that gives the exact numerical answers as the old 
code. I already work 80, and sometimes even 100 hours in a week 
developing new material. The less time I have to spend on projects that 
already work as is, the better. The last time I checked, important linux 
distros used in industry (Cent, Suse, etc) all still included legacy 
gcc3 development support. If you think about the investment in gcc3 
based code that is out there, and the time that could be required to 
port that to gcc4, keeping the legacy support makes allot of sense.


When gcc4 first came out, I tried moving. I was able to get my code to 
compile and link after making allot of changes to the header files, but 
I got different numerical answers on my data for some cases. This is the 
real bugbear. When you change compilers, everything has to be QC'd 
again. I tried again with gcc4.3, and found again that many header files 
had changed and it took quite a bit of work to get it to compile. When I 
did get it to work, I now got the same numerical answers as with gcc3. 
This underscores some of the issues that can happen when you change 
compilers, especially if the compiler is a relatively new version. 
Imagine some of the disasters that could have happened if I based 
research on the incorrect values from software compiled under the early 
versions of gcc4!!! There have also been allot of issues with folks 
trying to compile f77 code under gfortran.


In many cases, there is just no good reason to move compilers when you 
have mature src code that has been optimized and QC'd for 30+ years. Why 
would you want to put ANY time into maintaining such code? That is not a 
rhetorical question, so if there are some good reasons to move to newer 
versions of gcc, I would be interested in hearing the arguments. Putting 
in time to revise code and end up with the identical assembler is not 
something I am all that interested in.


Was there some particular reason to physically remove the gcc-3 bin from 
my cygwin install? What would have been the harm in leaving it there, 
since I already had it installed? I think that many cygwin users would 
find it useful to have the gcc3 packages included in the cygwin package 
manager, even if they are in the obsolete section.


If the packages still exist and can be installed manually, I would love 
to know where to find the packages and documentation. If I have to build 
it from src, that is fine to, but some documentation would really be 
helpful there as well.


Thanks

LMH




Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:

On 8/19/2013 1:27 PM, LMH wrote:

I recently tried to update my cygwin install and discovered I had to
change
to the setup-x86.exe package for the update to work. After finishing the
update, I see that some binaries have been removed from my install. Which
g++-3 and which g77-3 now return no findings and those compilers
appear to
have been removed from the package manager. There are some g77 listings
under the _obsolete category, but those are version 4.5-4.7. I very much
still need gcc3, so I would appreciate some information on how I can
add it
back in.


gcc-3 and friends are desperately old and have been only grudgingly
included in the "recent" past to support building 'setup.exe'.  But it's
been a while now since 'setup.exe' required gcc-3.  Obviously, it is in
your interest to step away from gcc-3 as well.  If you absolutely cannot do
that for some reason, check your favorite search engine for the "Cygwin
Time Machine" to take a trip back into Cygwin's past.  Or generate your
own blast from the past by building gcc-3 yourself.



--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

Re: g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[Larry Hall (Cygwin)]

On 8/19/2013 1:27 PM, LMH wrote:

I recently tried to update my cygwin install and discovered I had to change
to the setup-x86.exe package for the update to work. After finishing the
update, I see that some binaries have been removed from my install. Which
g++-3 and which g77-3 now return no findings and those compilers appear to
have been removed from the package manager. There are some g77 listings
under the _obsolete category, but those are version 4.5-4.7. I very much
still need gcc3, so I would appreciate some information on how I can add it
back in.


gcc-3 and friends are desperately old and have been only grudgingly
included in the "recent" past to support building 'setup.exe'.  But it's
been a while now since 'setup.exe' required gcc-3.  Obviously, it is in
your interest to step away from gcc-3 as well.  If you absolutely cannot do
that for some reason, check your favorite search engine for the "Cygwin
Time Machine" to take a trip back into Cygwin's past.  Or generate your
own blast from the past by building gcc-3 yourself.

--
Larry

_

A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

[LMH]

I recently tried to update my cygwin install and discovered I had to 
change to the setup-x86.exe package for the update to work. After 
finishing the update, I see that some binaries have been removed from my 
install. Which g++-3 and which g77-3 now return no findings and those 
compilers appear to have been removed from the package manager. There 
are some g77 listings under the _obsolete category, but those are 
version 4.5-4.7. I very much still need gcc3, so I would appreciate some 
information on how I can add it back in.


LMH

--
Problem reports:   http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:  http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple