Hello,
Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler and
especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not migrate
to GCC 4.4.x sooner than later?? We have more community developers
building, testing, and reporting on GCC 4.4.x than before.
What is the price
* ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler
> and especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not
> migrate to GCC 4.4.x sooner than later?? We have more community
> developers building, testing, and
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
Hello,
Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler
and especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not
migrate to GCC 4.4.x sooner than later?? We have more community
developers building,
* Ian Collins (i...@ianshome.com) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>> * ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler
>>> and especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not
>>> migrate to GCC 4.4.x
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Ian Collins (i...@ianshome.com) wrote:
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
Hello,
Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler
and especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not
migrat
Jim Langston wrote:
This is where my confusion rests - SUNWgcc is still 3.4.3, it is
through the development package that 4.3.3 gets loaded, are they
both supported ? I'm confused because SUNWgcc seems distinctly
directed as core part of OS, whereas, development/gcc seems to
have a "you're on you
* Jim Langston (jim.langs...@sun.com) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>> * Ian Collins (i...@ianshome.com) wrote:
>>
>>> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>>>
* ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC c
* Shawn Walker (swal...@opensolaris.org) wrote:
> Jim Langston wrote:
>> This is where my confusion rests - SUNWgcc is still 3.4.3, it is
>> through the development package that 4.3.3 gets loaded, are they
>> both supported ? I'm confused because SUNWgcc seems distinctly
>> directed as core part of
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Jim Langston (jim.langs...@sun.com) wrote:
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Ian Collins (i...@ianshome.com) wrote:
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* ken mays (maybird1...@yahoo.com) wrote:
Hello,
Since developers are getting more involve
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
* Shawn Walker (swal...@opensolaris.org) wrote:
Jim Langston wrote:
This is where my confusion rests - SUNWgcc is still 3.4.3, it is
through the development package that 4.3.3 gets loaded, are they
both supported ? I'm confused because SUNWgcc seems distinctly
directed as c
* Mark Martin (storycraf...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that SUNWgcc
>> is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
>> builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
>> compiling code using GCC in ON is
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that SUNWgcc
is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
compiling code using GCC in ON is to use 3.4.3 until such time as
some
* Scott Rotondo (scott.roto...@sun.com) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>>
>> I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that SUNWgcc
>> is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
>> builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
>> compiling
#define developers please
i think ppl are using gcc on *solaris because:
a) they dont know that suncc exist
b) they havent got enough skill to fix gccism
b2) there are too many gccism and they are lazy
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:57 PM, ken mays wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Since developers are getting m
sorry, forgot the
c) hardcore "opensource"/gnu fanboyz
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Andras Barna wrote:
> #define developers please
>
> i think ppl are using gcc on *solaris because:
> a) they dont know that suncc exist
> b) they havent got enough skill to fix gccism
> b2) there are too many
You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun Studio
as either lacking skill or being lazy. There are plenty of developers
who have written software on other platforms (OS X, Linux, etc.) who
have written perfectly good software with gcc-isms, and have users (like
us) appeali
the discussion is not about having or not having gcc *in* solaris.
gcc3 as well as gcc4 is available in opensolaris 2009.06
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 12:49 AM, Stephen Lau wrote:
> You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun Studio as
> either lacking skill or being lazy. There
Stephen Lau wrote:
You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun Studio
as either lacking skill or being lazy. There are plenty of developers
who have written software on other platforms (OS X, Linux, etc.) who
have written perfectly good software with gcc-isms, and have user
>Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>>
>> I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that SUNWgcc
>> is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
>> builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
>> compiling code using GCC in ON is to use 3.4.3 until su
Shawn Walker wrote:
Stephen Lau wrote:
You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun
Studio as either lacking skill or being lazy. There are plenty of
developers who have written software on other platforms (OS X, Linux,
etc.) who have written perfectly good software with gc
casper@sun.com wrote:
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that SUNWgcc
is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
compiling code using GCC in ON is to use 3.4
> casper@sun.com wrote:
>>> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
I can't speak definitively about this, but my best guess is that
SUNWgcc
is still 3.4.3 because the ON consolidation hasn't qualified later
builds of GCC for building ON. And so, the supported method for
compiling code
Ian Collins wrote:
> As Ken says, 4.4.x is where all the gcc effort is going, especially with
> C++. Shouldn't OpenSolaris be moving with the times?
What do you mean with " moving with the times"?
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j
Scott Rotondo wrote:
> You can at least compile ON with gcc 4.x now, though that's a recent
> development. See CR 6795209.
I have been told that you can compile the Linux kernel using Sun Studio since
more than a year now but it does not work...
Do you know whether the results are working?
Jö
Stephen Lau wrote:
> You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun Studio
> as either lacking skill or being lazy. There are plenty of developers
> who have written software on other platforms (OS X, Linux, etc.) who
> have written perfectly good software with gcc-isms, and
Shawn Walker wrote:
> Stephen Lau wrote:
> > You do a disservice by dismissing anyone who may know about Sun Studio
> > as either lacking skill or being lazy. There are plenty of developers
> > who have written software on other platforms (OS X, Linux, etc.) who
> > have written perfectly goo
Hi Ken,
V čt, 11. 06. 2009 v 20:57, ken mays píše:
> Hello,
>
> Since developers are getting more involved in using the GCC compiler and
> especially the GCC 4.4.x compilers, I started wondering why not migrate
> to GCC 4.4.x sooner than later?? We have more community developers
> building, test
> Regardless, as long as Sun Studio remains closed, it is
> important that the OpenSolaris community provide a viable,
> up-to-date, open source option as much as possible.
>
> Cheers,
> -- Shawn Walker
Just so everyone knows, this has nothing to do with Sun Studio. This is
just to see if we can
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 8:15 PM, ken mays wrote:
>
>> Regardless, as long as Sun Studio remains closed, it is
>> important that the OpenSolaris community provide a viable,
>> up-to-date, open source option as much as possible.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- Shawn Walker
>
> Just so everyone knows, this has no
ken mays wrote:
Note: The idea started when I wanted Phoronix to do their testing benchmark article using GCC 4.4.0 with OpenSolaris 2009.06 versus Fedora 11.
Does your spec file set the default to -m64?
A couple of the tests ran slow against Fedora not due to gcc 3.x versus 4.x
but instead b
Do I have this right, we are looking to have GCC 4.4.0 in the
/contrib repo, submitted through JUCR, we have
4.3.2, available via pkg gcc-dev-4 , we have 3.4.3
available via SUNWgcc, plus there is a current PTL 4820 to
migrate 3.4.3 to 4.3.x.
What I need as a developer is a stable env., I would l
--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Milan Jurik wrote:
> From: Milan Jurik
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] GCC 4.4: Can we handle it?!?
> To: "ken mays"
> Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 10:36 AM
> Hi Ken,
>
> V čt, 11. 06. 2009
ken mays wrote:
> I submitted an RFE (#9444) for GCC 4.4.x at:
> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=9444
>
> and will review the submittal of an ARC case.
You really want to talk to Stefan Teleman and the folks in tools-compilers
about this - if it was easy to do, it would have been
Alan Coopersmith wrote:
ken mays wrote:
I submitted an RFE (#9444) for GCC 4.4.x at:
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=9444
and will review the submittal of an ARC case.
You really want to talk to Stefan Teleman and the folks in tools-compilers
about this - if it was easy to do
--- On Fri, 6/12/09, George Vasick wrote:
> From: George Vasick
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] GCC 4.4: Can we handle it?!?
> To: "Alan Coopersmith"
> Cc: "ken mays" , opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 5:21 PM
> Alan
> Hopefully,
> this will spark the GCCfss resources to update to
> GCCfss 4.4.0 as well
> (see: http://cooltools.sunsource.net/gcc).
For gccfss and gcc-4.4, there may be legal reasons preventing the mix, so don't
hold your breath.
Btw, I still believe that in opensolaris we should not consider 4
This part really gets confusing to me. Is the opensolaris/debain endeavor
{opensolaris.com} a more focused business alternative /grant money available.
Does that mean opensolaris.org will always be a reorganization effort. If
solaris opts into supported solaris11 does everything good go to a
op
john kroll wrote:
This part really gets confusing to me.
Which part? Context, please!
--
Ian.
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
Sorry sir my comment was not specific to GCC 4.4
OpenSolaris and Debian being, as examples, tending
towards opposite ends of that spectrum.
At the end of the day, this is a lot of hot air over little.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, john kroll wrote:
> Sorry sir my comment was not specific to GCC 4.4
>
>
> OpenSolaris and Debian being, as examples, tending
> towards opposite ends of that spectrum.
>
> At the end of the day, this is a lot of hot air over little.
I simply meant that Debian's ph
Mark Martin wrote:
> I simply meant that Debian's philosophy is that absolutely nothing
> _not_ free (read: not opensourced) gets intot the distro. That's not
This is unfortunately not true. They e.g. publish a fork from my software that
has been changed to bne in conflict with the Copyright la
Marc Glisse wrote:
Hopefully,
this will spark the GCCfss resources to update to
GCCfss 4.4.0 as well
(see: http://cooltools.sunsource.net/gcc).
Upgrading GCCfss to 4.4.0 is included in our plans.
George
For gccfss and gcc-4.4, there may be legal reasons preventing the mix, so don't
hold
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Mark Martin wrote:
>
> > I simply meant that Debian's philosophy is that absolutely nothing
> > _not_ free (read: not opensourced) gets intot the distro. That's not
>
> This is unfortunately not true. They e.g. publish a fork from
> Upgrading GCCfss to 4.4.0 is included in our plans.
Hello,
I am definitely not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the new "GCC runtime
library exception" adopted in gcc-4.4 was written specifically so that things
like gccfss are forbidden unless you opensource the backend with an appropriate
Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> > The bits from Indiana which may become Solaris.Next did not go through
> > ARC either ;-)
>
> *yet*.
>
> They *will* go through the ARC process before they are shipped in
> Solaris.Next.
Given the fact that there are _many_ changes to be discussed, this will take a
lon
* Joerg Schilling (joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de) wrote:
> Glenn Lagasse wrote:
>
> > > The bits from Indiana which may become Solaris.Next did not go through
> > > ARC either ;-)
> >
> > *yet*.
> >
> > They *will* go through the ARC process before they are shipped in
> > Solaris.Next.
>
> And you're waiting for the ARC review to do that? I
> haven't looked too closely but I'm not generally aware
> of any security problems introduced by pfexec in OpenSolaris.
By default OpenSolaris gives the default user adminstrator privileges, allowing
any program run by that user to execute
Marc Glisse wrote:
Upgrading GCCfss to 4.4.0 is included in our plans.
Hello,
I am definitely not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the new "GCC runtime library
exception" adopted in gcc-4.4 was written specifically so that things like gccfss
are forbidden unless you opensource the backend w
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Lurie wrote:
>> And you're waiting for the ARC review to do that? I
>> haven't looked too closely but I'm not generally aware
>> of any security problems introduced by pfexec in OpenSolaris.
>
> By default OpenSolaris gives the default user adminstrator privileges
I agree...i think the current approachis very windowsish (Pre-vista) and can
only lead to problems.
2009/6/17 Moinak Ghosh
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 11:41 PM, Lurie wrote:
> >> And you're waiting for the ARC review to do that? I
> >> haven't looked too closely but I'm not generally aware
> >> o
--- On Fri, 6/12/09, Moinak Ghosh wrote:
> From: Moinak Ghosh
> Subject: Re: [osol-discuss] GCC 4.4: Can we handle it?!?
> To: "ken mays"
> Cc: opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
> Date: Friday, June 12, 2009, 11:18 AM
> I have already started using Gcc 4.4.0
Just as an update on what happened:
The OS 2009.06-b111b repository contains these packages:
SUNWbinutils 2.15
SUNWgnu-mp 4.2.4
SUNWmpfr 2.3.2
GCC-dev 4.3.2
What I ended up doing is requesting those packages to be updated to the current
released versions to support GCC 4.3.3 and GCC
I am using 4.3.3 and 4.4.0 compiled both 32bit and 64bit that
I downloaded for http://gcc.gnu.org
Same for GMP and MPFR, downloading from the respective
open source locations.
I have not built binutils
Jim
///
ken mays wrote:
Just as an update on what happened:
The OS 2009.0
gcc 4.3.2 is available in 2009.06:
gcc-dev-4
gcc-432
gcc-runtime-432
Also, binutils 2.19 was integrated into Nevada a few builds ago. It
will be in the next release of OpenSolaris.
George
ken mays wrote:
Just as an update on what happened:
The OS 2009.06-b111b repository contains these
> The "SUNW" prefix will be dropped from all
> packages for future OpenSolaris releases.
To be replaced with ORCL or?
Sorry, couldn't resist... ;)
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@open
55 matches
Mail list logo
