GCC 3.1

GCC 3.1

[Mark Mitchell]

Reminder: October 15th is one week from today.

That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.

From October 15th through December 15th, we'll concentrate on minor
improvements and bug fixes.

Thanks,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: GCC 3.1

[guerby]

> That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
> languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.

I assume that for Ada new supported targets are ok? I'm thinking about
support of the BSD family, GNU/Linux on non x86, and may be MacOS X
that I hope will be contributed now that the sources are available to
everyone to play with.

-- 
Laurent Guerby <guerby@acm.org>

Re: GCC 3.1

[Mark Mitchell]

--On Monday, October 08, 2001 10:35:38 PM +0200 "guerby@acm.org" 
<guerby@acm.org> wrote:

>> That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
>> languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.
>
> I assume that for Ada new supported targets are ok? I'm thinking about
> support of the BSD family, GNU/Linux on non x86, and may be MacOS X
> that I hope will be contributed now that the sources are available to
> everyone to play with.

In general, I think new ports are an exception.  (After all, we added
the S/390 port to GCC 3.0.1.)  The reason is that those changes were
unbelievably unlikely to impact anything else.

So, yes, adding configury bits for Ada, especially during the "minor
improvements" phase, is welcome.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: GCC 3.1

[Carlo Wood]

On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 01:27:23PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Reminder: October 15th is one week from today.
> 
> That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
> languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.

I suppose that means that tree serialization and precompiled
header files won't become part of 3.1?

-- 
Carlo Wood <carlo@alinoe.com>

Re: GCC 3.1

[Daniel Berlin]

On Monday, October 8, 2001, at 08:56  PM, Carlo Wood wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 08, 2001 at 01:27:23PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
>> Reminder: October 15th is one week from today.
>>
>> That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
>> languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.
>
> I suppose that means that tree serialization and precompiled
> header files won't become part of 3.1?

I'm not sure about precompiled headers, as there are other 
implementations, but i've never intended tree serialization (which i 
assume is directed at me, since it's my branch) to be in 3.1.
The only thing i'm currently planning on submitting for 3.1 is maybe a 
new bitmap implementation, and the dataflow changes (In addition to the 
already contributed support for dwarf2 location lists, and dwarf2 
namespace support).
Everything else i've gotten done already (but not announced or 
submitted) is likely not going to be submitted for 3.1 for various 
reasons.
--Dan

Re: gcc 3.1

[lartey]

On Sun, 21 Jul 2002, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> lartey wrote:
> 
> >Has anyone seen the same problem?.
> >
> Yes. See the following FAQ:
> 
>     http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#4_0

Thanks


ED

> 
> Ciao, Paolo.
> 
> 

gcc 3.1

[lartey]

I have installed gcc3.1 sucessfully with this output

[lartey@hepr0 inputs]$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/3.1/specs
Configured with: ./configure 
Thread model: single
gcc version 3.1

But then when I try to compile a simple program. It complains about the 
fstream header file:

In file included from /usr/local/include/g++-v3/fstream:48,
                 from test.cpp:2:
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:52: parse error before `{' 
token
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:57: virtual outside class 
   declaration
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:57: function `int 
std::overflow(int 
   = -1)' is initialized like a variable
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:60: virtual outside class 
   declaration
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:60: function `int 
std::underflow()' 
   is initialized like a variable
/usr/local/include/g++-v3/bits/basic_file.h:63: virtual outside class 

Has anyone seen the same problem?. 


THanks

ED

Re: gcc 3.1

[Paolo Carlini]

lartey wrote:

>Has anyone seen the same problem?.
>
Yes. See the following FAQ:

    http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/faq/index.html#4_0

Ciao, Paolo.

gcc 3.1

[lartey]

I have redhat linux 7.2 with gcc 2.96. I am trying to install gcc 3.1
but then I get this error messages


[root@hepr0 gcc-3.1]# gmake bootstrap
gmake[1]: Entering directory `/gcc3-1/gcc-3.1/libiberty'
rm -f libiberty.a pic/libiberty.a
ar rc libiberty.a \
  regex.o cplus-dem.o cp-demangle.o md5.o alloca.o argv.o choose-temp.o 
concat.o dyn-string.o fdmatch.o fibheap.o floatformat.o fnmatch.o getopt.o 
getopt1.o getpwd.o getruntime.o hashtab.o hex.o lbasename.o 
make-temp-file.o objalloc.o obstack.o partition.o pexecute.o safe-ctype.o 
sort.o spaces.o splay-tree.o strerror.o strsignal.o ternary.o xatexit.o 
xexit.o xmalloc.o xmemdup.o xstrdup.o xstrerror.o  mkstemps.o
ar: regex.o: No such file or directory
gmake[1]: *** [libiberty.a] Error 1
gmake[1]: Leaving directory `/gcc3-1/gcc-3.1/libiberty'
gmake: *** [all-libiberty] Error 2

ANy ideas why this happens?.


Thanks

ED

GCC 3.1

[James Whitelaw]

Hi GCC Team,

Thank you once again for another excellent release of this flagship Free 
Software product ! The new 64 bit support for UltraSPARC series CPUs 
will make supporting software in the Solaris environment so much easier, 
given that 64 bit kernel modules can now be compiled without needing 
Suns' Workshop C Compiler. I also anticipate significant performance 
improvements for software that particularly benefits from 64 bit math 
operations, primarily encryption. This should do much to further the 
cause of 64 bit GNU/Linux on this platform as well.

Though I have not yet tried this release ( downloading the sources at 
the moment! ), I very much look forward to putting it through its paces.

Kind Regards,
James Whitelaw.

GCC 3.1

[Mark Mitchell]

Unfortunately, several of my messages seem to have gotten blocked
by the spam filter; I guess we think Earthlink users are spammers...

Anyhow, here are several important items:

1. I have backed out Joel's patch.

2. The NetBSD patches are not going in; sorry.  

3. The Ada library changes are not going in; sorry.  

4. I've spun a hopefully final prerelease; it will be in the snapshots
   directory by morning.  Please try it out.

5. I am travelling, and totally unavailable tomorrow.  Assuming no
   disasters, I will spin the release over the weekend.

Thanks to everyone for the hard work today; we are almost there!

-- 
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

Re: GCC 3.1

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, David Rasmussen wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, David Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> >>When will 3.1 be out?
> >
> >
> > When it's ready.
> >
> > Earlier, if you contribute (<http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>,
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/>,...).
> >
> > Gerald
>
> Yeah, but besides all the tautological answers, does anybody have an
> idea about when? In 1 day, 1 week, 1 month?

The page at <URL:http://gcc.gnu.org/> mentions in the
announcement of the 3.1 branch "planned for late April".

brgds, H-P
PS.  I'm sure that new contributors would not force the release
*before* it's ready. :-D

Re: GCC 3.1

[Paolo Carlini]

David Rasmussen wrote:

> An answer like "We actually don't know" or "In about 2 weeks probably, 
> but no guarantees" would be more helpful. There's nothing wrong with 
> the question I asked.

    http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg00514.html

Ciao, P.

Re: GCC 3.1

[Jakub Jelinek]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:51:07AM +0200, David Rasmussen wrote:
> Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, David Rasmussen wrote:
> > 
> >>When will 3.1 be out?
> > 
> > 
> > When it's ready.
> > 
> > Earlier, if you contribute (<http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>,
> > <http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/>,...).
> > 
> > Gerald
> 
> Yeah, but besides all the tautological answers, does anybody have an 
> idea about when? In 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? I am not bitching about it 
> not being ready or telling you to release it soon or anything. I am just 
> asking if anybody have an idea about when it is being released. No 
> reason to answer "When it's ready". An answer like "We actually don't 
> know" or "In about 2 weeks probably, but no guarantees" would be more 
> helpful. There's nothing wrong with the question I asked.

AFAIK current goal is May, 1st, but anything may happen...
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-04/msg00514.html

	Jakub

Re: GCC 3.1

[David Rasmussen]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, David Rasmussen wrote:
> 
>>When will 3.1 be out?
> 
> 
> When it's ready.
> 
> Earlier, if you contribute (<http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>,
> <http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/>,...).
> 
> Gerald

Yeah, but besides all the tautological answers, does anybody have an 
idea about when? In 1 day, 1 week, 1 month? I am not bitching about it 
not being ready or telling you to release it soon or anything. I am just 
asking if anybody have an idea about when it is being released. No 
reason to answer "When it's ready". An answer like "We actually don't 
know" or "In about 2 weeks probably, but no guarantees" would be more 
helpful. There's nothing wrong with the question I asked.

/David

Re: GCC 3.1

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2002, David Rasmussen wrote:
> When will 3.1 be out?

When it's ready.

Earlier, if you contribute (<http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html>,
<http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/>,...).

Gerald
-- 
Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/

GCC 3.1

[David Rasmussen]

When will 3.1 be out?

Re: GCC 3.1

[DJ Delorie]

>  Any chance to get the "-@" option into 3.1.

To be compatible with djgpp, borland, and cygwin, that would be "@foo"
not "-@foo".  If "foo" doesn't name an existing file, it is silently
not replaced.  DJGPP has been doing this for nearly a decade now, for
*all* djgpp programs (it's a default part of the runtime).

Re: GCC 3.1

[Mark Mitchell]

--On Tuesday, October 09, 2001 09:06:19 PM -0400 Robert Schweikert 
<rjschwei@mindspring.com> wrote:

> Mark,
>
>  Any chance to get the "-@" option into 3.1. I submitted a prototype for
> this just before the 3.0 release. The idea here is to provide an option
> that let's users specify command line arguments in a file. I'll be happy
> to integrate it and submit a patch if someone can point me to the
> appropriate files where this stuff should go

Yes, I'd say that could go in any time up until Dec. 15th.

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com

GCC 3.1

[Robert Schweikert]

Mark,

 Any chance to get the "-@" option into 3.1. I submitted a prototype for
this just before the 3.0 release. The idea here is to provide an option
that let's users specify command line arguments in a file. I'll be happy
to integrate it and submit a patch if someone can point me to the
appropriate files where this stuff should go.

Thanks,
Robert

Mark Mitchell wrote:

> Reminder: October 15th is one week from today.
>
> That is the cutoff date for major new functionality (new programming
> languages, new optimization passes, etc.) in GCC 3.1.
>
> >From October 15th through December 15th, we'll concentrate on minor
> improvements and bug fixes.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
> CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com
>



--
Robert Schweikert                      MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU
rjschwei@mindspring.com                         LINUX

GCC 3.1

[Mark Mitchell]

Please remember that the end of the first two-month development phase
for GCC 3.1 is drawing to a close.  As of October 15th, we will not
be adding major new functionality on the mainline; we'll instead
settle in for two months of more moderate improvements, followed by
two months of stabilization work before branching for the release.

I'm looking forward to GCC 3.1 on April 15, 2002!

Thank you,

--
Mark Mitchell                   mark@codesourcery.com
CodeSourcery, LLC               http://www.codesourcery.com