A bugfix from last month for 2.10.1?

A bugfix from last month for 2.10.1?

[Michael Sokolov]

Hi there,

In early June I fixed a bug in MIPS ECOFF ld --embedded-relocs that caused it
to crash when an input object was not ECOFF. The fix is
ld/emultempl/mipsecoff.em revision 1.5. It was already too late for binutils-
2.10, so it isn't there, but Philip Blundell then said it might go into 2.10.1.
So maybe it should be checked into -rbinutils-2_10-branch?

--
Michael Sokolov		Harhan Engineering Laboratory
Public Service Agent	International Free Computing Task Force
			International Engineering and Science Task Force
			615 N GOOD LATIMER EXPY STE #4
			DALLAS TX 75204-5852 USA

Phone: +1-214-824-7693 (Harhan Eng Lab office)
E-mail: msokolov@ivan.Harhan.ORG (ARPA TCP/SMTP) (UUCP coming soon)

Re: A bugfix from last month for 2.10.1?

[Philip Blundell]

>In early June I fixed a bug in MIPS ECOFF ld --embedded-relocs that caused it
>to crash when an input object was not ECOFF. The fix is
>ld/emultempl/mipsecoff.em revision 1.5. It was already too late for binutils-
>2.10, so it isn't there, but Philip Blundell then said it might go into 2.10.1
>.
>So maybe it should be checked into -rbinutils-2_10-branch?

I've done this now.  Thanks for the reminder and sorry about the delay.

Anybody else with fixes that didn't get put into 2.10, please mail them to me 
again if you think they merit inclusion now.  I will try to go through my old 
emails and dig out the patches that I put off, but I will almost certainly 
overlook some.

p.

GAS copyright update

[David O'Brien]

Printing a date newer than "1997" gives the user confidence they are
running the current version of gas.  :-)


Index: as.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gas/as.c,v
retrieving revision 1.10
diff -u -r1.10 as.c
--- as.c	2000/04/26 15:09:43	1.10
+++ as.c	2000/05/03 02:40:36
@@ -514,7 +514,8 @@
 	case OPTION_VERSION:
 	  /* This output is intended to follow the GNU standards document.  */
 	  printf (_("GNU assembler %s\n"), VERSION);
-	  printf (_("Copyright 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"));
+	  printf (_("\
+Copyright 1997,1998,1999,2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"));
 	  printf (_("\
 This program is free software; you may redistribute it under the terms of\n\
 the GNU General Public License.  This program has absolutely no warranty.\n"));

Re: GAS copyright update

[Alan Modra]

On Tue, 2 May 2000, David O'Brien wrote:

> Printing a date newer than "1997" gives the user confidence they are
> running the current version of gas.  :-)

Applied.  Release branch too.

-- 
Linuxcare.  Support for the Revolution.

Re: GAS copyright update

[David O'Brien]

On Wed, May 03, 2000 at 04:40:21PM +1000, Alan Modra wrote:
> Applied.  Release branch too.

I looked at the website, but didn't see the branching/release paradigm
Binutils uses (ie, FreeBSD has both a -CURRENT (trunk) and multiple
-STABLE branches (RELENG_{4,3,22}).  Features enter on the trunk and only
if highly tested and stable can they even be candidates for committing to
a -STABLE branch.  Users expect -STABLE branches to change slowly, so
many things that could be back ported aren't to keep from disturbing
deployed servers.

Can you take a moment and explain it?

I am in the process of updating FreeBSD's Binutils.  Typically I only use
released code for contributed code.  However as you know the latest
Binutils release is 1.5 years old.  I now have to figure out what to
import from anoncvs or an FTP'ed snapshot (and what date is a stable
Binutils).  A requirement in FreeBSD's Binutils upgrade is IA-64 support.
 
-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)

Re: GAS copyright update

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:49:30 -0700
   From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>

   I looked at the website, but didn't see the branching/release paradigm
   Binutils uses (ie, FreeBSD has both a -CURRENT (trunk) and multiple
   -STABLE branches (RELENG_{4,3,22}).  Features enter on the trunk and only
   if highly tested and stable can they even be candidates for committing to
   a -STABLE branch.  Users expect -STABLE branches to change slowly, so
   many things that could be back ported aren't to keep from disturbing
   deployed servers.

   Can you take a moment and explain it?

We do not have the concept of an ongoing -STABLE branch.  The GNU
tools are oriented around releases.

We are in the middle of a release cycle for 2.10.  Philip Blundel
<Philip.Blundell@pobox.com> is the release manager.

In the CVS repository, the 2.10 branch is a branch named
binutils-2_10-branch.  When this branch becomes stable, Philip will
turn it into the 2.10 release.

There will probably be some problems with the 2.10 release.  Those
will be patched on the branch, and turned into a 2.10.1 release (and
perhaps 2.10.2, and so on).

After the 2.10 release cycle is finished, the 2.10 branch will no
longer be used.

In the meantime, development continues on the trunk.  When we make a
2.11 release, it will be branched from the trunk at that time.

Ian

Re: GAS copyright update

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:49:30 -0700
   From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>

   I am in the process of updating FreeBSD's Binutils.  Typically I only use
   released code for contributed code.  However as you know the latest
   Binutils release is 1.5 years old.  I now have to figure out what to
   import from anoncvs or an FTP'ed snapshot (and what date is a stable
   Binutils).  A requirement in FreeBSD's Binutils upgrade is IA-64 support.

By the way, the snapshots come from the 2.10 release branch.

As far as I know, IA-64 support is not in the 2.10 release branch.  It
was added to the trunk after 2.10 branched off.

Ian

Re: GAS copyright update

[Philip Blundell]

In message < 20000503124929.A98199@dragon.nuxi.com >, "David O'Brien" writes:
>I looked at the website, but didn't see the branching/release paradigm
>Binutils uses [...]
>
>Can you take a moment and explain it?
>
>I am in the process of updating FreeBSD's Binutils.  Typically I only use
>released code for contributed code.  However as you know the latest
>Binutils release is 1.5 years old.  I now have to figure out what to
>import from anoncvs or an FTP'ed snapshot (and what date is a stable
>Binutils).  A requirement in FreeBSD's Binutils upgrade is IA-64 support.

Ian has already explained the way branches and releases work.

IA-64 support will not be in binutils 2.10.  If you need this you will have to 
use the trunk version or wait for binutils 2.11.  (I would hope that 2.11 will 
be released by the end of this year, but there are obviously no promises.)  Or 
you could backport the IA-64 changes to the release version yourself.

p.

Re: GAS copyright update

[David O'Brien]

On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> IA-64 support will not be in binutils 2.10.  If you need this you will
> have to use the trunk version or wait for binutils 2.11.

Is the issue one of time?  I'm looking for a Binutils that is solid for
i386 and DEC Alpha, yet has IA-64 support (in any experimental form).
Since those using the IA-64 bits understand their beta/alpha status, I
would not think people would expect as solid of bits as other
architecures.  Thus will not critisize, etc. the Binutils developers for
the IA-64 bit's [potentually] lesser quality.

-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)

Re: GAS copyright update

[Philip Blundell]

In message < 20000504105011.C1813@dragon.nuxi.com >, "David O'Brien" writes:
>On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 10:04:38AM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
>> IA-64 support will not be in binutils 2.10.  If you need this you will
>> have to use the trunk version or wait for binutils 2.11.
>
>Is the issue one of time?

Not really.  IA-64 wasn't added until after the 2.10 branch was forked.  I 
haven't actually looked into how intrusive the changes would be if we wanted 
to add it, but at this stage in the release cycle I really don't want to do 
that anyway.

>Since those using the IA-64 bits understand their beta/alpha status, I
>would not think people would expect as solid of bits as other
>architecures.

Then those using IA-64 can work from a snapshot of the trunk.

p.

Re: GAS copyright update

[David O'Brien]

On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 07:16:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> 
> Not really.  IA-64 wasn't added until after the 2.10 branch was forked.  I 
> haven't actually looked into how intrusive the changes would be if we wanted 
> to add it, but at this stage in the release cycle I really don't want to do 
> that anyway.

When is the next release to happen?  Can we discuss this more as this
position puts me/FreeBSD in a large bind.
 
> >Since those using the IA-64 bits understand their beta/alpha status, I
> >would not think people would expect as solid of bits as other
> >architecures.
> 
> Then those using IA-64 can work from a snapshot of the trunk.

Yes and then the i386 bits and Alpha bits suffer needlessly.  FreeBSD
uses 2.9.1 which is bug ridden.  Linux doesn't suffer this because it
uses H.J. Lu's version.  However, Linux's Binutils changes too often for
FreeBSD (since the Linux Binutils tracks CVS).  However, the world is now
judged on how Linux handles things.  For instance, FreeBSD has taken
mucho flack for lack of MMX instruction support (since 2.9.1 doesn't),
yet "Linux can assemble it".

Thus I need a stable, dependable Binutils to upgrade the FreeBSD one to.
And FreeBSD now has IA-64 hardware and thus need IA-64 bits.  Trying to
pick a date that the CVS trunk is suffient for my needs scares me.
Especially if it is anything like the GCC CVS tree which is often not
buildable (even many snapshots are).

The way FreeBSD handle contributed software is to do vendor imports and
try like hell to make as little changes to it as possible.  Me taking the
2.10 release and adding some IA-64 bits from the trunk branch will really
mess this up.  Especially when I later need to vendor import the 2.10.1
release.
 
-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)

Re: GAS copyright update

[Philip Blundell]

In message < 20000504113649.A2426@dragon.nuxi.com >, "David O'Brien" writes:
>On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 07:16:30PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
>> 
>> Not really.  IA-64 wasn't added until after the 2.10 branch was forked.  I 
>> haven't actually looked into how intrusive the changes would be if we wanted
> 
>> to add it, but at this stage in the release cycle I really don't want to do 
>> that anyway.
>
>When is the next release to happen?

I would hope that 2.10 will be released within a couple of weeks, and (very 
vaguely) 2.11 by the end of the year.

>Can we discuss this more as this position puts me/FreeBSD in a large bind.

We can certainly discuss it.  If you can convince me that backporting the 
IA-64 parts would not destabilise any other areas of code then we could 
perhaps consider it for some subsequent release on the 2.10 branch.

>> Then those using IA-64 can work from a snapshot of the trunk.
>
>Yes and then the i386 bits and Alpha bits suffer needlessly.

Can't you use a different source base for different architectures?  This sort 
of situation will always happen - wherever you draw the cut-off point for a 
release, there are going to be some features left out.  For example, the CRIS 
port didn't get in to 2.10 either.  If you felt that your life would be made 
noticeably and needlessly more miserable by not having IA-64 in 2.10 the time 
to speak out was back in March when the release branch was being created, not 
now when we are trying to put the finishing touches to the release.

p.

Re: GAS copyright update

[David O'Brien]

On Thu, May 04, 2000 at 07:44:33PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> We can certainly discuss it.  If you can convince me that backporting
> the IA-64 parts would not destabilise any other areas of code then we
> could perhaps consider it for some subsequent release on the 2.10
> branch.

Thank you.

> Can't you use a different source base for different architectures?

Unfortunately not easily as it complicates our build procedure.

> This sort of situation will always happen - wherever you draw the
> cut-off point for a release, there are going to be some features left
> out.

Very true.  Typically the BSD philosophy is to only use released versions
of toolchain bits.  Sacrificing features for tested stability.

> If you felt that your life would be made noticeably and needlessly more
> miserable by not having IA-64 in 2.10 the time to speak out was back in
> March when the release branch was being created, not now when we are
> trying to put the finishing touches to the release.

I sincerely apologize for that.  I just realized that there was a 2.10
branch and a release was nearing.  I queried the list about any upcoming
releases back in January and was told by Ian there were no plans.  I have
only been mandated to upgrade the FreeBSD toolchain w/in the past month.

-- 
-- David    (obrien@NUXI.com)

Re: GAS copyright update

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 11:36:49 -0700
   From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org>

   Thus I need a stable, dependable Binutils to upgrade the FreeBSD one to.
   And FreeBSD now has IA-64 hardware and thus need IA-64 bits.  Trying to
   pick a date that the CVS trunk is suffient for my needs scares me.
   Especially if it is anything like the GCC CVS tree which is often not
   buildable (even many snapshots are).

   The way FreeBSD handle contributed software is to do vendor imports and
   try like hell to make as little changes to it as possible.  Me taking the
   2.10 release and adding some IA-64 bits from the trunk branch will really
   mess this up.  Especially when I later need to vendor import the 2.10.1
   release.

These two requirements are unfortunately incompatible with respect to
the GNU binutils.  There are long spans of time between releases.  You
can't restrict yourself to public releases and then simultaneously
require the newest code.

The IA-64 support was checked in just a couple of weeks ago.  The
binutils release cycle takes a minimum of a month.

Ian

Re: A bugfix from last month for 2.10.1?

[David O'Brien]

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 10:43:45PM +0100, Philip Blundell wrote:
> >Do you have a date for a 2.10.1 yet?
> 
> Not yet.  I'm kind of aiming for the middle of September, but it depends on 
> all sorts of things.

Are there updated plans on a 2.10.1 release?

-- 
-- David  (obrien@FreeBSD.org)

Re: A bugfix from last month for 2.10.1?

[Philip Blundell]

>Are there updated plans on a 2.10.1 release?

Yes.  Things have slipped a bit, as is always the way, but I plan to do some 
work on the branch this weekend and make a first release candidate for 2.10.1 
early next week.

p.

Re: GAS copyright update

[Geoff Keating]

> Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:07 -0700
> From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>

> +	  printf (_("\
> +Copyright 1997,1998,1999,2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"));

Spaces after commas?  There's no point trying to squeeze it into 80
characters, because next year it will overflow anyway.

-- 
- Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>

Re: GAS copyright update

[Ian Lance Taylor]

   Date: Wed, 3 May 2000 12:10:23 -0700
   From: Geoff Keating <geoffk@cygnus.com>

   > Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 19:42:07 -0700
   > From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@NUXI.com>

   > +	  printf (_("\
   > +Copyright 1997,1998,1999,2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n"));

   Spaces after commas?  There's no point trying to squeeze it into 80
   characters, because next year it will overflow anyway.

We only need to say Copyright 2000 in this message.  We shouldn't list
various years (if we were going to do that, we should do it back to
1991 anyhow).  See the description of --version in
    http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_15.html#SEC15

Ian