Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com writes:
OK, got it. You will still see all of the normal gcc options. We provide
additional options targeted specifically at the Sun backend on SPARC as
well.
What about GCC-style inline assembler? Does it work with the Studio
Bart Smaalders wrote:
Bart Smaalders wrote:
If I use generic gcc for sparc and type ggc -c --help, I get a bunch
of output describing options that are interpreted by various stages
in the compilation and linking pipeline. Is any of this output
different w/ your code in place? In what way?
Darren J Moffat wrote:
So will all possible code that the GNU backend can build also be able to
be built with the Studio backend ?
all possible is a pretty big claim. The answer is a qualified yes.
We designed the product to be 100% compatible. There is always a chance
somebody will find a
Rainer Orth wrote:
Bart Smaalders bart.smaalders at Sun.COM writes:
Apart from the issues mentioned in my last mail (integrating 4.3.3
instead of the current 4.3.4, defaulting to Studio backend on SPARC),
this seems fine to me.
I agreed, defaulting to the Studio backend is a really bad
Bart Smaalders wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
Bart Smaalders bart.smaalders at Sun.COM writes:
The question is one of compatibility to me... the provenance of the
backend seems irrelevant, but its interface is not.
Compatibility is extremely important. This will be our 6th release of
gcc
It just occurred to me that my use of the term backend may be unclear.
By backend, I mean the processing that occurs after scanning and
parsing, typically optimization and code generation. To me, gas is an
assembler. It comes after the compiler backend.
George
George Vasick wrote:
Bart
Darren J Moffat wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
Attached, please find the revision 3 of the GCC proposal addressing
the following feedback:
1) GCC should install in /usr/bin/gcc/major.minor.
That is a typo in the summary. The attachment shows the correct location:
/usr/gcc/4.3
Sorry about
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at Sun.COM writes:
Attached, please find the revision 3 of the GCC proposal addressing the
following feedback:
Thanks, looks much better overall.
1) GCC should install in /usr/bin/gcc/major.minor.
Darren already commented on this: I
Corrected info for SUNWgccfss43:
Exported Interfaces Comments
===
SUNWgccfss43Sun backend components.
(SPARC only)
Attached, please find the revision 3 of the GCC proposal addressing the
following feedback:
1) GCC should install in /usr/bin/gcc/major.minor.
2) Committed interfaces stability is too high and should be lowered to
uncommitted.
3) Gccfss components should be broken out into a separate
One correction:
Exported Interfaces Comments
===
SUNWgccgccfss Sun backend components.
(SPARC only)
George Vasick wrote:
One correction:
Exported InterfacesComments
===
SUNWgccgccfssSun backend components.
The correct package name is also SUNWgccgccfss43
(SPARC only
Hi Jyri,
Thanks for the pointer to 2009/606.
I looked at the latest proposal sent this morning and noticed the file
layout is different than that used by postgres, one of the prime
examples people suggested I should follow for gcc.
Postgres puts most components under a single subdirectory:
Jyri Virkki wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
I had expected collectd to use something like the postgres layout but it
seems to have followed another variant. This leaves me confused as to
what standard I should follow for gcc.
The general discussion was about .../$COMPONENT/$VERSION/* vs
Hi Rainer,
I am actually on vacation this week but I do want to make progress on
this one point regarding multiple versions:
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
[...]
The project team needs to either update the proposal to remove
/usr/compilers or I will derail this case and call
ro at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com writes:
Corrected a typo in the attachment. SUNWgccruntime432 will be deleted.
SUNWgccruntime, which is part of GCC 3.4.3, will be retained.
Thanks,
George
George Vasick wrote:
Please find a revised
George Vasick wrote:
ro at techfak.uni-bielefeld.de wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com writes:
[...]
You should provide some details about this: how is this used, and what is
in there? I think this belongs into its own package.
Exported InterfacesComments
Corrected a typo in the attachment. SUNWgccruntime432 will be deleted.
SUNWgccruntime, which is part of GCC 3.4.3, will be retained.
Thanks,
George
George Vasick wrote:
Please find a revised proposal attached addressing the following feedback:
1) Versioning should be major.minor
Please find a revised proposal attached addressing the following feedback:
1) Versioning should be major.minor, not major.minor.micro.
2) usr/share/man7 contents should be moved to usr/share/man5.
3) choosing which compiler is invoked by default, e.g./usr/bin/gcc.
Thanks,
George
John Plocher wrote:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 6:29 PM, George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com
wrote:
In the previous case for 4.3.2, we had proposed adding plain links in
/usr/bin to the default version of GCC, e.g. /usr/bin/gcc - gcc-4.3.2.
According to the gcc man page, plain gcc should
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Raj Prakash wrote:
usr/share/man/man7
usr/share/man/man7/fsf-funding.7
usr/share/man/man7/gfdl.7
usr/share/man/man7/gpl.7
Since those are not device drivers, the miscellaneous topics man pages
belong in section 5 on SysV-based platforms like
typo corrected.
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
Raj Prakash wrote:
usr/share/man/man7
usr/share/man/man7/fsf-funding.7
usr/share/man/man7/gfdl.7
usr/share/man/man7/gpl.7
Since those are not device drivers, the miscellaneous topics man pages
belong in section 5 on SysV-based
Norm Jacobs wrote:
Raj Prakash wrote:
This information is Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems
1. Introduction
1.1. Project/Component Working Name:
GCC4: The GNU Compiler Collection 4.X
4. Technical Description:
4.1. Details:
Commands will be installed in /usr/bin with
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
How's the progress with moving ON (and perhaps other consolidations, I
don't know if they use GCC at all or rather prefer the Studio compilers)
from GCC 3 to GCC 4?
Delayed a little. We lost a resource recently and we are still playing
catch up
, George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com
wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
We released 4.3.2 in OpenSolaris 2009.06. We have to update 4.3.2 in
order to release 4.3.3 to avoid duplicate pathnames between the packages.
The case specified 4.3.2 as a new delivery, not something
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
You really need both 4.3.2 4.3.3?
My first choice would have been to replace the current gcc 3.4.3 with
gcc 4.X and simply called it gcc. However, gcc 3.4.3 is part of the
Solaris build environment and we must keep it until Solaris moves to a
newer version of gcc.
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
We released 4.3.2 in OpenSolaris 2009.06. We have to update 4.3.2 in
order to release 4.3.3 to avoid duplicate pathnames between the packages.
The case specified 4.3.2 as a new delivery, not something already provided.
Sorry about that. Here
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com writes:
We released 4.3.2 in OpenSolaris 2009.06. We have to update 4.3.2 in
order to release 4.3.3 to avoid duplicate pathnames between the packages.
Is this relevant at all? Has this ever been ARCed? If not, it might as
well
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 01:37:13PM -0700, George Vasick wrote:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
You really need both 4.3.2 4.3.3?
Solaris freezes on a specific release for its build compiler. What
happens when they are on 4.x.y and we want to release 4.x.z?
Just because
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com writes:
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
You really need both 4.3.2 4.3.3?
My first choice would have been to replace the current gcc 3.4.3 with
gcc 4.X and simply called it gcc. However, gcc 3.4.3 is part of the
Solaris build
Raj Prakash wrote:
Some interesting issues where raised on this thread, but from my reading
of the
conversation, they seemed to be out of scope of this case.
George, are there any outstanding issues that you need to follow up?
Raj
I see 3 issues from the comments:
1) Interface
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
The stability of gdb interfaces is really up to its maintainers. Our
goal is simply to port it to Solaris and preserve the exported
interfaces as they come from the maintainers. What if I make a
stability claim that Sun cannot honor down the road
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
Rather than list all files and directories in SUNWgdb, it would be better
to list the exported (and imported) interfaces and their stability.
exported interfaces:
* CLI commands: volatile
* MI commands: volatile
You need to list the commands
Resending. I sent this our yesterday afternoon, but I don't see it in
mailfinder today. Is there something wrong with the LSARC-ext at sun.com
email alias?
Thanks,
George
George Vasick wrote:
Rainer Orth wrote:
Raj Prakash Raj.Prakash at sun.com writes:
2. Project Summary
2.1
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
Rainer Orth wrote:
[...]
Is there a reason to use isaexec on SPARC? There's no 32-bit kernel
anymore, so the 32-bit binary will not be used by isaexec, but could only
invoked manually. Unless the 64-bit GDB has trouble debugging 32-bit
programs
I have received the replies. I am on the opensolaris arc alias and open
cases seem to be forwarded there.
Thanks,
George
Raj Prakash wrote:
Please copy George Vasick on your emails. -- Raj
Original Message
Subject: Re: GDB: The GNU Project Debugger [LSARC/2009/492
Rainer Orth wrote:
Raj Prakash Raj.Prakash at sun.com writes:
2. Project Summary
2.1. Project Description:
Upgrade GDB from version 6.3 to 6.8, the latest released version.
Also, add support for debugging 64 bit executables.
4. Technical Description:
4.1. Details:
Danek Duvall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:41:25AM -0700, George Vasick wrote:
Is there any reason that 1.10 can't simply be replaced by 1.10.2? IIRC,
there were incompatibilities between 1.9 and 1.10, which is why both are
there. As far as I can tell, Ubuntu doesn't have separate
. There are no
interface changes
autoconf 2.63
automake 1.10.2
flex 2.5.35
gdb 6.8
gm4 1.4.12
libtool 2.2.6
Submitter: George Vasick
Regards,
Raj
Update GNU Autoconf
Danek Duvall wrote:
On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 09:41:25AM -0700, George Vasick wrote:
Is there any reason that 1.10 can't simply be replaced by 1.10.2? IIRC,
there were incompatibilities between 1.9 and 1.10, which is why both are
there. As far as I can tell, Ubuntu doesn't have separate
Hi Marc,
We want to allow customers to test a new release of the compilers before
they remove the previous release requiring both compilers to be
installed at once, for example gcc-4.3.2 and gcc-4.3.3.
Thanks,
George
Marc Glisse wrote:
01/07/2009]
In-Reply-To: 499B52B3.2050301 at
Revised one pager and manifest attached incorporating the following changes:
1) usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11 moved to usr/gnu/i386-pc-solaris2.11.
2) Second bullet under section 4.1 updated to reflect the installation
changes for binutils and clarify that binutils will not be versioned.
3) unused
marc.glisse at gmail.com wrote:
(sorry for breaking the Cc: earlier, I used the opensolaris-arc forum,
which apparently is missing some functionality)
On Feb 12, 2009 5:23pm, George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com wrote:
No, they are all part of the same binutils package. Gnu tools can
Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
Are you actually improving GCC performance on
Solaris by modifying GCC?
Yes, by hooking up the GCC frontends with the
Studio Sparc backends.
The plain GCC backend will be available under flag
control.
[...]
I've heard claims of Studio outperforming GCC on x86,
discussion concerns the correct location for
/usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11 and in particular
/usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11/lib/ldscripts which is used by the Gnu ld command.
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:42PM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
Marc Glisse wrote:
[...]
Indeed, or even
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:09:56PM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
I just noticed LSARC-ext at Sun.COM was not copied on this thread
originated by Marc's reply on the 7th.
Marc originally raised the following question:
usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11
Is this strange path
John Plocher wrote:
usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11
Is this strange path necessary? Can't the subdirectories (bin and lib)
go directly to /usr?
The answer to the first part is no. The commands in
usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin cannot be moved to /usr/bin since they
conflict with existing Solaris
Kyle McDonald wrote:
On 2/12/2009 4:47 PM, George Vasick wrote:
John Plocher wrote:
usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11
Is this strange path necessary? Can't the subdirectories (bin and lib)
go directly to /usr?
The answer to the first part is no. The commands in
usr/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin cannot
Marc Glisse wrote:
[...]
Indeed, or even directly /usr/lib/ldscripts. (Note that for gcc, there is
/gcc/ between /usr/lib and i386-pc-solaris2.11, so we may not want to sneak
binutils in there)
The existing precedent seems to be something like the following:
SuSE:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
George Vasick George.Vasick at Sun.COM wrote:
I noticed this potential issue as well. There were two factors in my
proposal to leave the Gnu version /usr/bin/cpp:
1) According to the /usr/lib/cpp man page, the preferred way to invoke
/usr/lib/cpp is via the cc
Marc Glisse wrote:
01/07/2009]
In-Reply-To: 498C6E5A.2000804 at sun.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
3) The GCC runtime libraries are built with SONAME
set to the major
version, e.g. libstdc++.so.6.0.10 SONAME is set to
James Carlson wrote:
George Vasick writes:
Thanks for your many comments and helpful feedback. Attached, please
find a revised proposal. It contains major changes to the previous
proposal as follows:
This looks pretty nice except for one bit that seems a little
unfortunate:
usr/bin
Darren J Moffat wrote:
Tom Childers wrote:
Thanks George.
At our meeting this morning, I agreed to sponsor the case if we need
to derail it into a full review. So I look forward to a clean proposal
that allows us to complete this as a fast-track. We're extending the
fast-track timer to
Darren J Moffat wrote:
I also very strongly object to the creation of /usr/compilers/. I don't
see that it provides any value. Others have already indicated why so I
won't reiterate their statements.
The project team needs to either update the proposal to remove
/usr/compilers or I
James Carlson wrote:
George Vasick writes:
You bring up an interesting point. The whole discussion around adding
GNU Java and GNU Ada seems more like a business discussion to me. The
issues are time and resources to do the extra work versus the benefit.
Should it be handled as part
Shawn Walker wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
Actually, we are proposing to to install binutils 2.19 in
/usr/compilers/binutils219. It will be a separate package and not
contained in /usr/compilers/gcc432
Rainer Orth wrote:
Nicolas Williams writes:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 06:58:57PM +0100, Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
Actually, we are proposing to to install binutils 2.19 in
/usr/compilers/binutils219. It will be a separate package and not
contained in /usr/compilers/gcc432
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:24:13AM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
There is testing and potentially support.
Support means the same thing for GCJ and GNAT as for GCC: we'll keep the
thing up to date as new versions come out. Support need not mean we'll
fix any bugs
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 12:11:48PM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Thu, Jan 08, 2009 at 08:24:13AM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
There is testing and potentially support.
Support means the same thing for GCJ and GNAT as for GCC: we'll keep
Rainer Orth wrote:
George Vasick writes:
2. Project Summary
2.1. Project Description:
The project will provide the current releases of the GNU Compiler
Collection (GCC) and the GNU Binutils for OpenSolaris. The primary
components are the following:
- GCC includes C, C
All,
Thanks for your feedback. Please find a revised onepager attached. The
major changes are as follows:
- updated interest alias to tools-compilers at opensolaris.org.
- added references to existing, ARC cases:
- PSARC/2008/656: GNU binutils version 4.3.x
- derailed
-
Jan 2009 16:25:32 -0800
From: George Vasick George.Vasick at Sun.COM
To: LSARC-ext at sun.com
CC: George Vasick George.Vasick at Sun.COM, gcc2ir at sun.com
All,
Thanks for your feedback. Please find a revised onepager attached. The
major changes are as follows
elsewhere?
Thanks,
George
Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Wed, Jan 07, 2009 at 04:24:23PM -0800, George Vasick wrote:
Is there a business case for adding GCJ or GNAT? Are there any RFEs or
VOC data?
Given Sun's focus on integrating FOSS into OpenSolaris I would think
that the answer to your
Rainer Orth wrote:
Raj Prakash Raj.Prakash at sun.com writes:
Sun Proprietary/Confidential: Internal Use Only: Engineering Need-to-Know
This seems inappropriate for an open case.
Good point. I had no idea ARC cases were automatically posted to the
OpenSolaris forums.
1.5.4.
Byron Servies wrote:
On 12/17/08 04:15 PM, Raj Prakash wrote:
4. Technical Description:
4.1. Details:
- Existing GCC 3.4.3, GNU Runtime 3.4.3, and GNU Binutils 2.15 will
remain unchanged in /usr/sfw/.
- The latest community versions, GCC 4.3.2, GNU Runtime 4.3.2, and
Danek Duvall wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:35:36AM +1000, James C. McPherson wrote:
You seem to be conflicting with
6674032 Introduce GCC 4.3.x in Nevada
6674042 Introduce MPFR (Multiple Precision Floating-Point Rounding Library)
in Nevada
6674044 Introduce GNU MP 4.2.4 in
Byron Servies wrote:
On 12/19/08 11:21 AM, George Vasick wrote:
Byron Servies wrote:
On 12/17/08 04:15 PM, Raj Prakash wrote:
4. Technical Description:
4.1. Details:
- Existing GCC 3.4.3, GNU Runtime 3.4.3, and GNU Binutils 2.15 will
remain unchanged in /usr/sfw
Roland Mainz wrote:
George Vasick wrote:
Danek Duvall wrote:
On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 10:35:36AM +1000, James C. McPherson wrote:
You seem to be conflicting with
6674032 Introduce GCC 4.3.x in Nevada
6674042 Introduce MPFR (Multiple Precision Floating-Point Rounding
Library) in Nevada
James C. McPherson wrote:
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 16:15:05 -0800
Raj Prakash Raj.Prakash at Sun.COM wrote:
Template Version: @(#)onepager.txt 1.35 07/11/07 SMI
Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems
Sun Proprietary/Confidential: Internal Use Only: Engineering
Need-to-Know
1. Introduction
1.1.
I. Szczesniak wrote:
Do you mean Stefan Teleman?
Correct. Sorry about that.
George
Irek
On 12/18/08, George Vasick George.Vasick at sun.com wrote:
Hi James,
The GNU work has been transitioned from the Solaris team to the compiler
team. We are just picking up where Stefan Telemark
70 matches
Mail list logo
