On Thu, 31 Jul 2003 11:27:56 +0200
Alexander Leidinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I
get
---snip---
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11741:71:
Hi,
with a Jul 10 world, a clean /usr/obj and the sources as of yesterday I
get
---snip---
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11739:75: missing terminating ' character
/big/usr/src/contrib/gcc/dwarf2out.c:11741:71: warning: multi-line string litera
ls are deprecated
Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated into FSF CVS
Quoting Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
| Hi everyone,
|
| I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
| GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
| While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
| incorporated into FSF CVS
Hi everyone,
I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
incorporated into FSF CVS repository, I decided to make a patch
file available at http
On Fri, Sep 06, 2002 at 06:53:18PM -0700, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Hi everyone,
I've collected a number of patches for several problems with
GCC 3.2 compiler which have been brought to my attention so far.
While I am waiting for these patches or other suitable fixes to be
incorporated
On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
It doesn't here. I've used my own meta-port to install all the usual
stuff I want to have around, yesterday
Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
On 2002-09-02 08:52 +, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
It doesn't here.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe
Hi,
your patch to cp/cp-lang.c fixed the build of kdelibs3 for me.
Thanks!
Bye!
Michael Reifenberger
^.*Plaut.*$, IT, R/3 Basis, GPS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please
Maxim Sobolev wrote:
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please
Today (after GCC 3.2 import and makeworld) I
try to upgrade 'gmake' port and resulting 'gmake' command
dumps core in the libc's 'qsort'.
When I make 'gmake' without --with-included-gettext
option it work - at least I can make 'databases/gdbm' port with
it (which can be made
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe -march=athlon -c
./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
In file included from gbk.h:64
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\
-march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 08:52:56 -0700
Steve Kargl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
O -pipe -march=athlon
^^
This bug is in GCC PR database. Do not use -march=athlon for now.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the
BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I
builds with -march=athlon set.
You may want to add a entry to src/UPDATING about the new
gcc 3.2 and any apparent gotcha's (like the problem with
-march=athlon).
--
Steve
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked
with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe
what I am seeing there. Do they really believe malloc is supposed to
resize memory in-place all the time? Look what happens with map[0-n]
elements every
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 13:06:31 -0400
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do they really believe malloc
^^^ I meant realloc here.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I
Alexander Kabaev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not a GCC fault. The bug is in internal gettext library gmake is linked
with. I looked into read_alias_file function and I simply cannot believe
what I am seeing there.
PR ports/41075.
--
Christian naddy Weisgerber [EMAIL
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
What about 3.1.1 release?
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 10:21:13PM -0400, Joe Marcus Clarke wrote:
Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla again.
This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter a patch,
and update the Mozilla people.
My understanding from watching the
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:10:11 -0700
David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 12:08:41PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
BTW, the bug is present in official 3.2 release too.
What about 3.1.1 release?
I have GCC 3.1.1 port installed on STABLE. libiconv barf when compiled
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 09:01:31AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:52:56AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote:
To test gcc 3.2, I've been updating all of my installed
ports. It appears gcc 3.2 is having problems with
libiconv-1.8_1.
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I
Hi,
with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling
qt3 and arts):
...
c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui
-I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/local/include -
pthread -DQT_THREAD_SUPPORT
At 12:29 AM 9/3/2002 +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
Hi,
with -current I get during compiling kdelibs3 (and after successfully compiling
qt3 and arts):
...
c++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../dcop -I../libltdl -I../kdecore -I../kdeui
-I../kio -I../kio/kio -I../kio/kfile -I/usr/X11R6/include
On Tue, Sep 03, 2002 at 12:29:23AM +0200, Michael Reifenberger wrote:
I tried CFLAGS with -O[1|2] and with or without -march=-pentium3.
Always the same error.
Anyone else?
I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either, nor
can I build rpm.
- alex
To Unsubscribe:
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:27:45 -0700
Alex Zepeda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm seeing the exact same thing. I can't install linux_base either,
nor can I build rpm.
Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine
here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h.
--
Andrea Campi wrote:
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe\
-march=athlon -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
^
I get the same error on a P3:
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe
-march=pentiumpro
On Mon, 02 Sep 2002 17:20:49 -0700
Terry Lambert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
cc -I. -I. -I../include -I./../include -I/usr/local/include -O -pipe
-march=pentiumpro -c ./iconv.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/iconv.lo
^
Maybe -march=* doesn't work?
I traced it down to broken
The patch I sent is reversed. Use patch -R to apply.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
Where can I find this patch? I didn't see it in the message body or attached to any
of your previous messages.
Sorry,
apparently attachments are stripped now before being delivered
to the mailing lists. The patch is below:
Index: cp/cp-lang.c
On Mon, Sep 02, 2002 at 08:10:42PM -0400, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Have no idea what is your problem with linux_base, but rpm build fine
here after one gets past __size_t and machine/types.h.
And how does one do that?
- alex
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long to complete, but since
this is the first time I am doing it, there is good possibility of
unexpected delays, so please be patient.
Please respond immediately if you feel
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
I will import GCC 3.2 snapshot from the top of FSF gcc-3_2-branch in
about ten minutes. This task should not take long
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
fixed in 3.2.
GCC 3.2
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2 fixes a bug
that changes the API so it couldn't
3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
Some well known problem present in our current GCC snapshot appear to be
fixed in 3.2.
GCC 3.2 is using vendor-independent C++ ABI. Assuming they got it right
this time, this will allow us
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:34:12PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
So, what is it about gcc 3.2 that's so important, considering that we
wanted to do a real 5.0 release within 2 months?
This is really 3.1.1 -- so it is a minor point release. 3.2
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:50:50PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
I'm just a bit startled that this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't
recall it being discussed) and just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
To
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively for around a month due to various this thats and
Hi,
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which fixes
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when people will actually expect it to work.
I also dislike the apparent
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 14:50:50 -0700 (PDT)
Matthew Jacob [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From recent experience it is my estimation that a gcc upgrade sets 5.0
development back a month (that is, the last GCC upgrade kept *me* from
working productively
I should note that I'm raising more of a flag than normal.
This would have been a firing offense at several companies I've worked
at. It's not unreasonable to take a lesson from *why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
On
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:00:34PM -0700, Will Andrews wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 02:56:26PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This update has been *DEMANDED* in both -current and -ports for months now.
Yes, GCC 3.1 prerelease bites, big time, k thx. Better to fix
it now than later, when
with a known broken prerelease compiler?
Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release?
gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix'. They renamed the 3.1 branch to 3.2.
All future 3.1.x releases will be called 3.2.x.
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED
*why* these things are
firing offenses and start to raise queries. I've done so. Duty is done.
Go back to sleep.
Would you rather that we ship with a known broken prerelease compiler?
Would you rather that we changed from 3.1-prerelease to 3.1.1-release?
gcc-3.2 *is* 'gcc-3.1.1 + ABI bugfix
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can manage it, we also need a compiler upgrade for the base
system. Right now we can't build usable gif support in QT with the
base system g++, we have to install a port.
I am testing a buildworld with GCC 3.2 after Heimdal upgrade. If nothing
goes wrong, I plan
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:23:58PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
This is the same as using RELENG_4_6 (ie, 4.6-SECURE) in something. We
get bug fixes (that must work on *all* supported GCC arches). The risk
is _well_ mitigated.
Why is everyone second guessing Kan on this import??? It will
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Martin Blapp wrote:
Hi,
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
a patch, and update the Mozilla people.
Joe
Why would that change? I
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002 18:52:04 -0400 (EDT)
Joe Marcus Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, if 3.2 doesn't use thunks, it's likely to break Mozilla
again. This is really not that big of a deal. I'll just need to alter
a patch, and update the
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 03:51:52PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
Umm. Are you reading your -developers mail?
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
- Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2
Totally off-topic for this thread, sorry.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 04:58:54PM -0600, Scott Long wrote:
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
Note: I have tried bringing to
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
- Switch
Matthew Jacob wrote:
Yes, as best as I can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
--
David W. Chapman Jr.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. www.inethouston.net
[EMAIL
can.
But I didn't see a GCC 3.2 import on anyone's bullet list.
To quote Robert Watson:
My list basically consists of:
General
- GEOM as default storage management on all platforms, related
dependencies
- Switch in sysinstall to easily turn on ufs2
- Final resolution of any perl
On Sunday, September 1, 2002, at 07:14 PM, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote:
Of course. And being accused of 'trolling' is also a learning
experience.
I would have to agree with your sarcasm, seems like there is a big
troll hunt and everyone is being accused.
I wouldn't call it trolling but I
, and it
probably wasn't appropriate in any context. Please note, hovever,
that many of the concerns that you've brought up in this thread
have been *heavily* discussed in the public mailing list over the
past month. Just two weeks ago there was a heated discussion over
whether to import gcc 3.2, or leapfrog
On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big
totally wrong, and this won't break things. I'm just a bit startled that
this appears out of nowhere (I sure don't recall it being discussed) and
just happens, with 10 minutes warning.
The 2.95.3 - 3.1 prerelease upgrade was a big step.
3.1 prerelease - 3.2 is a little step which
weeks ago there was a heated discussion over
whether to import gcc 3.2, or leapfrog it and wait for 3.3. There
have been many more discussions like it.
Scott
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 03:47:47PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
And we all know how successful that was, right?
On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
deeply satisfying experiment
David O'Brien wrote:
And we all know how successful that was, right?
On the other side, we all know how successfull we were trying to get GCC
2.95.x bugs fixed for us, right? Do you really want to repeat this
deeply satisfying experiment again?
That was because the patches
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 01:04:55PM -0700, Terry Lambert wrote:
Blah Terry, TOTALLY 110% INCORRECT. The situation was the same as our
FreeBSD 3.x users that still post PR's against RELENG_3 and want us to
fix things. Even where there was complete patches against 2.94.3
available; the
Hi,
Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ?
Martin
Martin Blapp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
ImproWare AG, UNIXSP ISP, Zurlindenstrasse 29, 4133 Pratteln, CH
Phone: +41 061 826 93 00: +41 61 826 93 01
PGP:
On Sun, Aug 18, 2002 at 03:27:31PM +0200, Martin Blapp wrote:
Hi,
Any plans or ideas when gcc3.2 will be imported ?
Martin
I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
quickly (it has been addressed several times).
--
Morten Rodal
//
// PGP ID 2D75595B
//
Hi,
I think if you search the mailinglist archive you will find your answer
quickly (it has been addressed several times).
Thanks, yes found it. But with the answers I'm very unpleased. I really
really hope that we import either 3.2 or 3.3 now. Personally I'd
go with 3.2.
The fact is that
mb The situation is very unpleasant.
IIRC, we have no active GCC maintainer, no matter you feel unpleasant or not...
-- -
Makoto `MAR' Matsushita
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
According to Terry Lambert:
There's always waiting for 3.3 to be released before trying to
incorporate it...
There are too many code generation bugs in our version right now. Some
ports need 3.1.1 from ports (remember our gcc is 3.1-prerelease).
I don't care about 3.2 or 3.3, but I'd say go
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
Just a thought.
Jesse Gross
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short and 3.3
On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 11:59:11AM -0600, Long, Scott wrote:
Hi,
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x
Yes, moving to gcc32 is highly desirable for -current, otherwise we
will be stuck at gcc311 for the entire life of FreeBSD 5.x. The
important question to ask is, who will do the dirty work?
Moving to GCC 3.2 will do us no good. The lifetime of the 3.2 release
will be pretty short
wait for the last second to move to gcc33,
then have to delay FreeBSD 5.0 because everything in c++ land is
broken.
The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
The idea is to move to gcc 3.3-pre _now_ If GCC 3.2 has C++ ABI
kinks worked out, GCC 3.3 surely has the same code in. GCC developers
are trying to keep C++ ABI compatible between 3.2 and 3.3, but they are
not giving any guaranrtees.
Cool.
We can call it 3.3
Jesse Gross wrote:
Are any plans to move to GCC 3.2 in current?
Since it is just an ABI change it should work, without changing
anything.
It would give us a stable, multivendor ABI to work off of for the next
line of 5.x releases.
I believe David O'brien answer this the last 3 times
RedHat jumped the gun on the compiler release.
We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
We are not _releasing_ our own version of GCC and we do not invent
our own version numbers for it, so your attempt to compare us with
RedHat is unjustified. Again, FreeBSD 5.0 will be in no shape for
serious production use and putting GCC 3.2 there just to replace
of GCC into -CURRENT myself, if
there are no objections and if nobody is doing that already. I think
David got a point though and I want his proposal to be discussed more.
GCC 3.2 is an interim release and under no circumstances we should get
tied to it through all the 5.x branch lifetime. No one
It was also about trolling the mailing lists to cause just this
sort of heated discussion (congradulations on playing into
Jesse Gross's trolling here).
This was *not* about trolling the mailing list. I wish I were
intelligent enough to predict the behavior of thousands of people, most
of
Alexander Kabaev wrote:
Can *you* absolutely *guarantee* no binary incompatabilities
between 3.3, as it sits now, in experimental form, and the final
release of 3.3? If not, then I don't see why are exploding at
me.
3.1-pre to 3.2 upgrade breaks compatibility already. Can you
What stance is being taken regarding moving to the gcc 3.2 release for the
current branch given that 3.2 produces far better code than previous
releases.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-current in the body of the message
89 matches
Mail list logo
