* Re: Removal of V2 code @ 2000-11-20 8:55 Kaveh R. Ghazi 2000-11-20 9:46 ` sun/os as release candidate was: " Robert Lipe 2000-11-20 9:47 ` law 0 siblings, 2 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Kaveh R. Ghazi @ 2000-11-20 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, mark; +Cc: gcc > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > > Geoff> Does SunOS (not Solaris) work? I think we still have SunOS > Geoff> customers. > > I don't know about SunOS either. Kaveh? I mentioned this to Mark offline, but it deserves wider attention. the SunOS box I had access to died and its sysadmin decided not to revive it. Therefore I cannot assist in testing or V3 porting to SunOS. I've felt SunOS a worthy second tier candidate for these reasons: Tests K&R stage1 support Tests fixincludes thoroughly Tests SJLJ exceptions Tests other various missing OS feature handling in gcc I hope someone will volunteer to champion SunOS in lieu of me. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi Engagement Manager / Project Services ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu Qwest Internet Solutions ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* sun/os as release candidate was: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 8:55 Removal of V2 code Kaveh R. Ghazi @ 2000-11-20 9:46 ` Robert Lipe 2000-11-20 17:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2000-11-20 9:47 ` law 1 sibling, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Robert Lipe @ 2000-11-20 9:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kaveh R. Ghazi; +Cc: gcc Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > the SunOS box I had access to died While I'm sorry for your loss, there are ways to help coverage even in the absence of such a system. > I've felt SunOS a worthy second tier candidate for these reasons: > > Tests K&R stage1 support Many modern compilers have flags to dumb them down to K&R mode. Perhaps this could be accomplished by doing bootstraps with a compiler in such a mode. I suspect that "gcc -ansi" is probably not the best test, but it might suffice. Some vendor compiler might be a better test. Someone that cares about K&R could step up to the plate to add a cron job to do a nightly (or whatever) build on such a system. Does anyone other than HP even still provide a K&R-only compiler? If so, since there are binary kits of GCC available for that target, has the time come for us to relax the K&R restriction for bootstrapping GCC completely? > Tests SJLJ exceptions OpenServer in COFF mode uses SJLJ exceptions. (It's one reason I'm strongly considering yanking COFF mode; sjlj and dwarf-1 problems are apparently of decreasing strategic value to GCC and they break frequently.) This could be exercised somewhat by one of the nightly build processes by adding another pass with '-fsjlj-exceptions' or even doing a bootstrap by adding it to BOOT_CLFAGS. This could give us coverage on a system that doesn't _need_ SJLJ. > Tests fixincludes thoroughly > Tests other various missing OS feature handling in gcc Those represent holes. OTOH, maybe they represent holes that are of only of value on such an archaic target...I mean, does any actively maintained host/target still really spell "memcpy" only as "bcopy"? RJL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: sun/os as release candidate was: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 9:46 ` sun/os as release candidate was: " Robert Lipe @ 2000-11-20 17:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Gerald Pfeifer @ 2000-11-20 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Robert Lipe; +Cc: Kaveh R. Ghazi, gcc On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Robert Lipe wrote: > Someone that cares about K&R could step up to the plate to add a cron > job to do a nightly (or whatever) build on such a system. Exactly. And if there's none left who cares about K&R, well, than at some point in the future we should decide that this requirement will go away. > Does anyone other than HP even still provide a K&R-only compiler? If > so, since there are binary kits of GCC available for that target, has > the time come for us to relax the K&R restriction for bootstrapping GCC > completely? Personally, I wouldn't mind very much... (But we shouldn't do this lightly and really check that no platforms in use break.) Gerald -- Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 8:55 Removal of V2 code Kaveh R. Ghazi 2000-11-20 9:46 ` sun/os as release candidate was: " Robert Lipe @ 2000-11-20 9:47 ` law 1 sibling, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: law @ 2000-11-20 9:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Kaveh R. Ghazi; +Cc: geoffk, mark, gcc In message < 200011201655.LAA09289@caip.rutgers.edu >you write: > I mentioned this to Mark offline, but it deserves wider attention. > the SunOS box I had access to died and its sysadmin decided not to > revive it. Therefore I cannot assist in testing or V3 porting to > SunOS. > > I've felt SunOS a worthy second tier candidate for these reasons: > > Tests K&R stage1 support > Tests fixincludes thoroughly > Tests SJLJ exceptions FWIW, if we can get the PA/hpux bits in libstdc++-v3 up and running, then the PA port can test those issues pretty well :-) jeff ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code @ 2000-11-20 13:54 Richard Kenner 2000-11-20 14:59 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 2000-11-20 13:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc We're talking about other tools that depend on GCC. One would hope they'd have the same policy: a released version of a tool can only depend on a released version of GCC. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 13:54 Richard Kenner @ 2000-11-20 14:59 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 14:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kenner; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> writes: Richard> One would hope they'd have the same policy: a released Richard> version of a tool can only depend on a released version Richard> of GCC. Again, I don't think we're talking about a situation like that -- but I agree with your suggested policy. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code @ 2000-11-20 8:49 Richard Kenner 2000-11-20 11:11 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 2000-11-20 8:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc In at least a narrow interpretation, we're not talking about that. The GCC code will be tested, stable, etc. The issue is whether or not all the supporting tools will have caught up. It used to be the case that the policy of the GCC project was not to depend on any tool that has not yet been released. Has that changed? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 8:49 Richard Kenner @ 2000-11-20 11:11 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: kenner; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Richard" == Richard Kenner <kenner@vlsi1.ultra.nyu.edu> writes: Richard> It used to be the case that the policy of the GCC project Richard> was not to depend on any tool that has not yet been Richard> released. Has that changed? Not to my knowledge -- but I don't think we're not talking about that. We're talking about other tools that depend on GCC. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* RE: Removal of V2 code
@ 2000-11-19 17:40 Billinghurst, David (CRTS)
0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread
From: Billinghurst, David (CRTS) @ 2000-11-19 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Christopher Faylor', Geoff Keating; +Cc: Mark Mitchell, gcc
I can't get cygwin to bootstrap, and haven't since early september. Given
this, it is difficult to confirm that the change to V3 works
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Faylor [SMTP:cgf@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, 20 November 2000 12:24
> To: Geoff Keating
> Cc: Mark Mitchell; gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Removal of V2 code
>
> On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 05:10:33PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote:
> >Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes:
> >> I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the
> >> configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be
> >> settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but
> >> they seem to be well on the path to resolution.)
> >>
> >> If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to
> >> continue your work), you should:
> >>
> >> - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform.
> >>
> >> - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what
> >> you need in order to make that happen.
> >>
> >> We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll
> >> have to come up with a good reason... :-)
> >
> >The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with
> V3; I
> >don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix
> >this until next month; we don't have time.
> >
> >I don't know what the vxworks status is, but I'd bet it doesn't work
> either.
> >
> >I don't know what the Cygwin status is. It may work.
>
> Cygwin should be ok.
>
> cgf
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <Mark>]
[parent not found: <Mitchell's>]
[parent not found: <message>]
[parent not found: <of>]
[parent not found: <"Sun,>]
[parent not found: <19>]
[parent not found: <Nov>]
[parent not found: <2000>]
[parent not found: <13:03:48>]
[parent not found: <-0800>]
* Removal of V2 code @ 2000-11-19 13:03 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-20 0:41 ` Andrew Cagney 0 siblings, 2 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 13:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to continue your work), you should: - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what you need in order to make that happen. We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll have to come up with a good reason... :-) -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 13:03 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 17:24 ` Christopher Faylor ` (2 more replies) 2000-11-20 0:41 ` Andrew Cagney 1 sibling, 3 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes: > I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the > configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be > settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but > they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) > > If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to > continue your work), you should: > > - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. > > - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what > you need in order to make that happen. > > We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll > have to come up with a good reason... :-) The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with V3; I don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix this until next month; we don't have time. I don't know what the vxworks status is, but I'd bet it doesn't work either. I don't know what the Cygwin status is. It may work. Do HPUX, IRIX, BeOS work? Does SunOS (not Solaris) work? I think we still have SunOS customers. At Red Hat we have not switched over to V3, primarily for this reason. Such a change will make it difficult for us to merge patches back into the FSF sources, because we would not be able to test them. We would end up committing patches saying "have tested with C++ only on our internal sources, due to no libstdc++ support in the public tree". Already you can see this effect; you will notice that the automated tester is no longer testing C++ because the platform it tests with is not supported by libstdc++-v3. I believe this schedule is far too quick. We have only had libstdc++-v3 as the default for a few weeks, there are known problems, these problems will take some time to fix. I would wait 6 months and ask again. -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 17:24 ` Christopher Faylor 2000-11-19 17:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 2:54 ` Franz Sirl 2 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Christopher Faylor @ 2000-11-19 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geoff Keating; +Cc: Mark Mitchell, gcc On Sun, Nov 19, 2000 at 05:10:33PM -0800, Geoff Keating wrote: >Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes: >> I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the >> configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be >> settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but >> they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) >> >> If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to >> continue your work), you should: >> >> - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. >> >> - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what >> you need in order to make that happen. >> >> We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll >> have to come up with a good reason... :-) > >The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with V3; I >don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix >this until next month; we don't have time. > >I don't know what the vxworks status is, but I'd bet it doesn't work either. > >I don't know what the Cygwin status is. It may work. Cygwin should be ok. cgf ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 17:24 ` Christopher Faylor @ 2000-11-19 17:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 20:24 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-20 2:54 ` Franz Sirl 2 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 17:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes: Geoff> The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't Geoff> work yet with V3; I don't believe anyone, certainly not at Geoff> Red Hat, will be able to fix this until next month; we Geoff> don't have time. Put simply, I don't think that is an issue for the FSF release. None of these platforms are on primary release criteria list. If Red Hat has customers that need support for these platforms, then Red Hat will presumably provide implement support for V3. Geoff> Do HPUX, IRIX, BeOS work? I don't know about HPUX or BeOS. IRIX works. Geoff> Does SunOS (not Solaris) work? I think we still have SunOS Geoff> customers. I don't know about SunOS either. Kaveh? I don't think Red Hat's customer list is relevant, except as some sort of barometer of who's out there. But, we already have release criteria, and I believe that V3 works on all of those platforms except for HPUX (for which we have no target triplet in the critera; I wonder what version we're talking about here) and AIX (being worked on, expected to work soon). Doing the porting work really isn't hard and it's getting easier the more platforms we do. Any ELF platform with a reasonably compliant C library should be a snap. I don't know how conformant newlib is; it might be that you have to tweak some configuration bits to make that work. It's a day or two's work, a week tops. And once it works with newlib somewhere, it will probably work everywhere; the amount of target-specific code in V3 is tiny, and there are generic C versions for everything. Geoff> Such a change will make it difficult for us to merge Geoff> patches back into the FSF sources, because we would not be Geoff> able to test them. I should think that you could find a stock i686-pc-linux-gnu system to test platform-independent changes on. :-) And for most chips (MIPS, PowerPC, etc.) I bet you have non-embedded alternatives to test back-end changes on. There may be rare chips for which this is not possible, but there is likely either no C++ support for those chips at all in the FSF tree, or there is a non-embedded target for which you simply do not have access to appropriate hardware. In that case, I'm sure that either someone will provide you access to the hardware, test your patch themselves, or that you can go ahead and check it in, and let the people with the right hardware check out what happens. Any changes you make in your internal tree need to be tested in the public tree, using the same configuration that everyone else uses, before you check them in anyhow. It would be wrong to test a C++ patch with V2 and check it in without testing it with V3, even if V2 were still in the tree, since V3 is whatever everyone else is using. 99% of all changes coming from Red Hat are to code where there are not likely to be any merge issues depending on whether V2 or V3 is in use. It's going to be `cvs diff' and `patch' independent of the V2 vs. V3 issues. That's the procedure for testing a patch from your internal tree anyhow; how does the absence of V2 in the FSF sources make this harder? Is there some deeper technical issue I'm not seeing? Geoff> Already you can see this effect; you will notice that the Geoff> automated tester is no longer testing C++ because the Geoff> platform it tests with is not supported by libstdc++-v3. The regression tester is something you (quite generously!) decided to set up. It would be great if someone could port V3 to that platform. You could also choose a different target, which would allow us to continue getting the regression-testing reports for C++, at the expense of testing a different chip. Geoff> I believe this schedule is far too quick. We have only had Geoff> libstdc++-v3 as the default for a few weeks, there are Geoff> known problems, these problems will take some time to fix. Geoff> I would wait 6 months and ask again. You make it sound as though the switch was a surprise. :-) The switch to V3, and to the new ABI, and the removal of the previous versions of these things was announced as long as a year ago, and both V3 and the new ABI have been in the tree for many months. If people who build tools based on or around G++ haven't prepared themselves for this transition, that was probably a mistake. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 17:56 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 20:24 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 21:52 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 17:56:08 -0800 > >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes: > > Geoff> The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't > Geoff> work yet with V3; I don't believe anyone, certainly not at > Geoff> Red Hat, will be able to fix this until next month; we > Geoff> don't have time. > > Put simply, I don't think that is an issue for the FSF release. None > of these platforms are on primary release criteria list. I didn't understand this part, and so I couldn't understand much of the rest of your mail either. What does the release or the release criteria have to do with it? I was objecting to the deletion of libstdc++-v2 from the development tree, on the grounds that this would make it harder to do development. I would have no objection to its deletion from the release branch, if it's not needed for the release. I don't really care. I just wanted to try to avoid a possibly annoying mistake. If you really think you're doing the right thing, go ahead. > I should think that you could find a stock i686-pc-linux-gnu system to > test platform-independent changes on. :-) And for most chips (MIPS, > PowerPC, etc.) I bet you have non-embedded alternatives to test > back-end changes on. There may be rare chips for which this is not > possible, but there is likely either no C++ support for those chips at > all in the FSF tree, or there is a non-embedded target for which you > simply do not have access to appropriate hardware. In that case, I'm > sure that either someone will provide you access to the hardware, test > your patch themselves, or that you can go ahead and check it in, and > let the people with the right hardware check out what happens. The counter-example here is i960; there are no non-embedded alternatives (the choices are -coff, -elf, and -vxworks), and it does have C++ support. -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 20:24 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 21:52 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 21:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, geoffk; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes: >> Put simply, I don't think that is an issue for the FSF >> release. None of these platforms are on primary release >> criteria list. Geoff> I didn't understand this part, and so I couldn't understand Geoff> much of the rest of your mail either. Sorry. I was referencing the list of platforms that the SC has decided are primary targets for GCC 3.0; none of those targets are embedded systems. Geoff> What does the release or the release criteria have to do Geoff> with it? I was objecting to the deletion of libstdc++-v2 Geoff> from the development tree, on the grounds that this would Geoff> make it harder to do development. I would have no Geoff> objection to its deletion from the release branch, if it's Geoff> doing the right thing, go ahead. The problem is that these things aren't entirely orthogonal. The ABI, the library version, and the performance of the compiler are all intertwined. It's not just the question of dragging the sources around; it's more complex than that. There's also the issue that port maintainers need to invest the effort to switch to V3 because that's what we're going to support going forward. I'd really like to get a handle on whether that porting effort is truly difficult or not. (It wasn't difficult on the platforms I worked on, but, on the other hand, it has been pointed out that those were both SVR4-ish platforms.) Geoff> The counter-example here is i960; there are no non-embedded Geoff> alternatives (the choices are -coff, -elf, and -vxworks), Geoff> and it does have C++ support. OK. But I still don't really understand the scenario you're talking about. It seems to me there are a few cases: - Change to the i960 back-end in your tree. You can test in your tree, and you can test C/Fortran/ObjC in the public tree. By hypothesis, the public tree doesn't have i960 C++ support any more, since the scenario we're talking about is one where we don't have V2 in the public tree, and V3 doesn't work on the i960. So, nobody can complain about your change breaking i960 C++. - Change to the C++ front-end in your tree. Likely this change is not i960-specific. You can test with another chip. If it *is* i960 specific, then you're in the same boat as above: there's no i960 C++ support anyhow. So, I'm afraid I still don't understand the testing argument. Is there anyone out there who is willing to try a newlib port of V3? Is it possible to build newlib on an i686-pc-linux-gnu box, using it natively, instead of glibc? If so, would you tell me how to do this? Or, alternatively, a way to build a cross-compiler plus simulator so that I can test a newlib configuration on my PC? If you will tell me how to build all the pieces, I will try to figure out how to make V3 work in that environment. If I were to make that work, would that reduce your objection to removing the V2 sources? -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 21:52 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 22:33 ` Mark Mitchell ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 22:12 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > Date: Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:51:57 -0800 > Or, alternatively, a way to build a cross-compiler plus simulator so > that I can test a newlib configuration on my PC? Sure. I have a script for this, which the automated tester uses. Just change TOPDIR to somewhere on your machine. [The complexity of this script is why people keep agitating for a combined tree.] -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ===File ~/buildobjs.sh====================================== #!/usr/unsupported/bin/bash set -x TARGET=powerpc-eabisim CVSROOT_BIN=':pserver:anoncvs@anoncvs.cygnus.com:/cvs/src' CVSROOT_GCC=':pserver:anoncvs@anoncvs.cygnus.com:/cvs/gcc' TOPDIR=/sloth/delay/tbox CVS_DIR=$TOPDIR/cvs-objs SRC_XC=$CVS_DIR/gcc SRC_BIN=$CVS_DIR/binutils SRC_DIR=$TOPDIR/src-objs INSTALL_DIR=$TOPDIR/objs OBJ_DIR=$TOPDIR/build-objs SCRIPT_DIR=$HOME/tbox rm -rf $OBJ_DIR $INSTALL_DIR $SRC_DIR mkdir $OBJ_DIR $INSTALL_DIR $SRC_DIR || exit 1 mkdir $OBJ_DIR/src $OBJ_DIR/test || exit 1 mkdir -p $SRC_XC $SRC_BIN || exit 1 PATH=/bin:/usr/bin PATH=$INSTALL_DIR/bin:$TOPDIR/boot/bin:$PATH export PATH cd $SRC_XC || exit 1 cvs -Q -d $CVSROOT_GCC co egcs-full || exit 1 cd $SRC_BIN || exit 1 cvs -Q -d $CVSROOT_BIN co binutils gdb newlib dejagnu || exit 1 # the order here is important, the GCC files are the master copy. cd $SRC_BIN/src || exit 1 find . -print | cpio -pdlm $SRC_DIR || exit 1 cd $SRC_XC/egcs || exit 1 find . -print | cpio -pdlmu $SRC_DIR || exit 1 cd $SRC_DIR || exit 1 [ -x contrib/gcc_update ] && contrib/gcc_update --touch > /dev/null cd $OBJ_DIR/src || exit 1 $SRC_DIR/configure --prefix=$INSTALL_DIR --target=$TARGET || exit 1 make all || exit 1 make install || exit 1 DEJAGNU=/home/s1/cygnus/dejagnu/site.exp export DEJAGNU cd $OBJ_DIR/test || exit 1 $SRC_XC/egcs/configure --target=$TARGET \ --prefix=$INSTALL_DIR --enable-checking=misc,gc,tree || exit 1 make || exit 1 make -k check-gcc check-target-libio check-target-libstdc++ exit 0 ============================================================ ===File ~/lib/site.exp====================================== # Needed for isnative. load_lib "framework.exp" # Make sure we look in the right place for the board description files. if ![info exists boards_dir] { set boards_dir {} } lappend boards_dir "/home/geoffk/lib/dejagnu" # # If we're testing GCC, G++ or GDB, then we want to run on all the # available targets. Otherwise, just test the first one. # if ![info exists tool] { set run_multiple_targets 0; } elseif { $tool == "g++" || $tool == "gcc" || $tool == "gdb" || $tool == "libg++" || $tool == "libstdc++" || $tool == "libio" || $tool == "binutils" } { set run_multiple_targets 1; } else { set run_multiple_targets 0; } verbose "Global Config File: target_triplet is $target_triplet" 2 global target_list case "$target_triplet" in { { "native" } { set target_list "unix" } { "powerpc-*-eabi" } { set target_list { powerpc-sim } } { "powerpc-*-eabisim" } { set target_list { powerpc-sim } } } # # If the tool under test won't really benefit from running on multiple # targets, then don't do so. # if { ! $run_multiple_targets } { set target_list [list [lindex $target_list 0]]; } ============================================================ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-19 22:33 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 1:07 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-19 22:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, geoffk; +Cc: gcc Youch! OK, I'll try that script soon. Tomorrow is my wife's birthday, so not until Tuesday at the soonest... Thanks! -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 22:33 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 1:07 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 2:11 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 1:07 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, geoffk; +Cc: gcc Geoff -- Where do I but the site.exp you sent? In place of the DEJAGNU=/home/s1/cygnus/dejagnu/site.exp file? Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 1:07 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 2:11 ` Geoff Keating 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-20 2:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 01:07:11 -0800 > Geoff -- > > Where do I but the site.exp you sent? In place of the > > DEJAGNU=/home/s1/cygnus/dejagnu/site.exp > > file? Yes. You only have to do this if you want to do testing and might forget to enter --target_board: make check RUNTESTFLAGS=--target_board=powerpc-sim -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 22:33 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 1:07 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 12:20 ` Benjamin Kosnik 2000-11-21 12:37 ` Geoff Keating 2 siblings, 2 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 10:56 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, geoffk; +Cc: gcc, libstdc++ Geoff -- Thanks for the script. It worked great. The rumors of V2 not working with newlib were greatly exaggerated. I made absolutely no changes to the source code or configury bits. Everything built, and most C++ tests passed. Looking at the C++ tests, there were 40 unexpected failures (relative to the 3 we see on GNU/Linux). I randomly sampled 5 of the 37 new failures; all of them had the following problem: /nfs/gandalf/u2/mitchell/dev/powerpc-test/objs/lib/gcc-lib/powerpc-eabisim/2.97/../../../../powerpc-eabisim/lib/libc.a(fdopen.o): In function `_fdopen_r': /nfs/gandalf/u2/mitchell/dev/powerpc-test/src-objs/newlib/libc/stdio/fdopen.c:67: undefined reference to `fcntl' The code in question looks like it calls `_fcntl'; I don't know why the linker reports that as `fcntl'. I don't understand what's causing that, but it's clear that it has nothing to do with V3. I suspect a newlib configury issue. Geoff, would you mind tracking this down? It is possible that there will be runtime issues involving I/O streams once the `fdopen' issue is resolved; I have no way of knowing at this time. There was also one configury oddity in the V3 directory: /nfs/gandalf/u2/mitchell/dev/powerpc-test/cvs-objs/gcc/egcs/libstdc++-v3/configure: test: =: unary operator expected This comes from: AC_DEFUN(AC_LC_MESSAGES, [if test $ac_cv_header_locale_h = yes; then AC_CACHE_CHECK([for LC_MESSAGES], ac_cv_val_LC_MESSAGES, when $ac_cv_header_locale_h is not yet set. I think that the V3 configury bits should check for <locale.h> first. Would a V3 person please confirm that, and make the necessary change? Even without this change, however, the configuration completed, built the library, and mostly worked. The Steering Committee has pretty much forbidden me from spending more time working on getting V3 going with newlib. However, I think it's clear that a volunteer could finish the job with minimal effort. The first step doesn't even involve understanding anything about V3 -- just figure out what's going on with fcntl. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 12:20 ` Benjamin Kosnik 2000-11-21 12:45 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 12:37 ` Geoff Keating 1 sibling, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Benjamin Kosnik @ 2000-11-21 12:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: geoffk, geoffk, gcc, libstdc++ > The rumors of V2 not working with newlib were greatly exaggerated. Err. I think you mean the rumors of V3 working with newlib have been greatly exaggerated. As a matter of fact, it's been working since about Feb. I did a cross x86-x-powerpc-elf this Sunday, as a matter of fact, and it worked well. > I made absolutely no changes to the source code or configury bits. ...as none should be needed. > There was also one configury oddity in the V3 directory: > > /nfs/gandalf/u2/mitchell/dev/powerpc-test/cvs-objs/gcc/egcs/libstdc++-v3/configure: test: =: unary operator expected > > This comes from: > > AC_DEFUN(AC_LC_MESSAGES, > [if test $ac_cv_header_locale_h = yes; then > AC_CACHE_CHECK([for LC_MESSAGES], ac_cv_val_LC_MESSAGES, > > when $ac_cv_header_locale_h is not yet set. I think that the V3 > configury bits should check for <locale.h> first. Would a V3 person > please confirm that, and make the necessary change? I'll fix this. > Even without this change, however, the configuration completed, > built the library, and mostly worked. ... this has been my experience as well. Nice to see it confirmed. -benjamin ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 12:20 ` Benjamin Kosnik @ 2000-11-21 12:45 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 12:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: bkoz; +Cc: geoffk, geoffk, gcc, libstdc++ >>>>> "Benjamin" == Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz@redhat.com> writes: >> The rumors of V2 not working with newlib were greatly >> exaggerated. Benjamin> Err. I think you mean the rumors of V3 working with Benjamin> newlib have been greatly exaggerated. Right. >> Even without this change, however, the configuration completed, >> built the library, and mostly worked. Benjamin> ... this has been my experience as well. Nice to see it Benjamin> confirmed. Yup. Nice work setting this stuff up. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 12:20 ` Benjamin Kosnik @ 2000-11-21 12:37 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 12:47 ` Mark Mitchell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-21 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc, libstdc++ > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@sources.redhat.com > From: Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 10:56:13 -0800 > Geoff -- > > Thanks for the script. It worked great. > > The rumors of V2 not working with newlib were greatly exaggerated. Great! (I assume you mean V3). It seems to have changed since I looked at it last. Now the problem is that V3 doesn't cross-configure from Solaris. I get: updating cache ../config.cache /sloth/delay/tbox/cvs-gcc/egcs/libstdc++-v3/configure: test: argument expected and the configuration stops. This is just the usual breakage, though, and probably easily fixed, as compared to the earlier situation where it looked like lots of porting would be required. So, go for it! > The code in question looks like it calls `_fcntl'; I don't know why > the linker reports that as `fcntl'. I don't understand what's causing > that, but it's clear that it has nothing to do with V3. I suspect a > newlib configury issue. Geoff, would you mind tracking this down? I'll look at it. Thank you very much for your work! -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 12:37 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-21 12:47 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk, geoffk; +Cc: gcc, libstdc++ >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes: >> Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, libstdc++@sources.redhat.com From: Mark >> Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000 >> 10:56:13 -0800 >> Geoff -- >> >> Thanks for the script. It worked great. >> >> The rumors of V2 not working with newlib were greatly >> exaggerated. Geoff> Great! (I assume you mean V3). It seems to have changed Yes, sorry, for the confusion. Geoff> since I looked at it last. I think this may be because the V3 folks put some stubs for threading primitives in place that will provide a non thread-safe implementation on all platforms. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 17:24 ` Christopher Faylor 2000-11-19 17:56 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 2:54 ` Franz Sirl 2000-11-21 6:38 ` Franz Sirl 2 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Franz Sirl @ 2000-11-20 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Geoff Keating; +Cc: Mark Mitchell, gcc At 02:10 20.11.00, Geoff Keating wrote: >Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes: > > > I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the > > configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be > > settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but > > they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) > > > > If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to > > continue your work), you should: > > > > - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. > > > > - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what > > you need in order to make that happen. > > > > We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll > > have to come up with a good reason... :-) > >The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with >V3; I >don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix >this until next month; we don't have time. Well, not only the embedded stuff is non-functional, powerpc-linux-gnu is unusable with libstdc++-v3 too (see my posted testsuite results). I couldn't do too much debugging yet, but it seems most (if not all) of the testcases crash during constructor handling in glibc's malloc/free code. Franz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 2:54 ` Franz Sirl @ 2000-11-21 6:38 ` Franz Sirl 2000-11-21 7:26 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Franz Sirl @ 2000-11-21 6:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: Geoff Keating, gcc At 11:54 20.11.00, Franz Sirl wrote: >At 02:10 20.11.00, Geoff Keating wrote: >>Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes: >> >> > I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the >> > configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be >> > settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but >> > they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) >> > >> > If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to >> > continue your work), you should: >> > >> > - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. >> > >> > - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what >> > you need in order to make that happen. >> > >> > We can keep V2 in the tree for a bit longer, if we need to, but you'll >> > have to come up with a good reason... :-) >> >>The embedded platforms (*-elf, powerpc-eabi*, *-coff) don't work yet with >>V3; I >>don't believe anyone, certainly not at Red Hat, will be able to fix >>this until next month; we don't have time. > >Well, not only the embedded stuff is non-functional, powerpc-linux-gnu is >unusable with libstdc++-v3 too (see my posted testsuite results). I >couldn't do too much debugging yet, but it seems most (if not all) of the >testcases crash during constructor handling in glibc's malloc/free code. Replying to my own message, here is a backtrace of what I get as a fail in all cases I looked into so far, this is with todays CVS: [fsirl@entropy:~/obj/gccm/gcc/testsuite]$ LD_LIBRARY_PATH=~/obj/gccm/ppc-redhat-linux/libstdc++-v3/src/.libs/ gdb ./g++-pt-ttp9-C GNU gdb 5.0 Copyright 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions. Type "show copying" to see the conditions. There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type "show warranty" for details. This GDB was configured as "ppc-redhat-linux"... (gdb) r Starting program: /home/fsirl/obj/gccm/gcc/testsuite/./g++-pt-ttp9-C Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. 0xfe3893c in chunk_free () at /usr/include/stdlib.h:269 269 return __strtold_internal (__nptr, __endptr, 0); Current language: auto; currently c++ (gdb) bt full #0 0xfe3893c in chunk_free () at /usr/include/stdlib.h:269 __alloc1 = (allocator<char> &) @0x10010a08: {<No data fields>} __b = (istreambuf_iterator<char,std::char_traits<char> > &) @0x2c030001: Cannot access memory at address 0x2c030001 (gdb) bt #0 0xfe3893c in chunk_free () at /usr/include/stdlib.h:269 #1 0xfe388ec in free () at /usr/include/stdlib.h:269 #2 0xffa67b4 in _ZNSs4_Rep10_M_destroyERKSaIcE (this=0x2c030001, __a=@0xffefa08) at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/stl_alloc.h:131 #3 0xff98298 in _ZNSt6locale7classicEv () at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/basic_string.h:178 #4 0xffadbbc in _ZNSt13basic_filebufIcSt11char_traitsIcEEC1Ev (this=0xffef604) at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/localefwd.h:311 #5 0xff8fdc0 in __static_initialization_and_destruction_0 (__initialize_p=268503580, __priority=268368392) at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/locale_facets.h:35 #6 0xff90070 in _GLOBAL_.I._ZSt11__cfileinit () at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/std_fstream.h:96 #7 0xff8d7a4 in __do_global_ctors_aux () at /home/fsirl/cvsx/gccm/libstdc++-v3/libsupc++/vec.cc:56 #8 0xff89e68 in _init () at /usr/include/stdlib.h:269 #9 0x300106ac in _start () from /lib/ld.so.1 (gdb) This happens on both glibc-2.1.3 and glibc-2.2. Does anyone have an idea what might have gone wrong here? BTW, shouldn't c++filt now default to the V3 mangling style too? Franz. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 6:38 ` Franz Sirl @ 2000-11-21 7:26 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2000-11-21 7:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Franz Sirl; +Cc: Mark Mitchell, Geoff Keating, gcc > BTW, shouldn't c++filt now default to the V3 mangling style too? No. It shoudl dfault to auto, which is what it does now. It should, however, detect V3 mangling style automatically, using the _Z prefix. It's a 10 minute job if someone wants to do it. > > Franz. > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-19 13:03 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-20 0:41 ` Andrew Cagney 2000-11-20 0:55 ` Mark Mitchell 1 sibling, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Andrew Cagney @ 2000-11-20 0:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing the > configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things seem to be > settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX issues with V3, but > they seem to be well on the path to resolution.) > > If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 sources to > continue your work), you should: > > - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. > > - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what > you need in order to make that happen. Do you really want to do this? Wouldn't it be better to take a more staggered approach? First release a GCC with both v2 and v3 ABI support and then release a successor that only contains v3 support. I expect many people to try to use GCC with pre installed tools (GDB comes to mind). Requiring people to upgrade to some not-yet-even-developed version of random tools is going to raise a few eyebrows. (perhaps I'm misunderstanding the significance of the change) enjoy, Andrew ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 0:41 ` Andrew Cagney @ 2000-11-20 0:55 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 3:32 ` Marc Espie [not found] ` <00112021562300.00259@hallo> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 0:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ac131313; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com> writes: Andrew> Mark Mitchell wrote: >> I plan on doing a `cvs remove' on the V2 sources, and removing >> the configury bits for V2 at the end of next week as things >> seem to be settling OK with V3. (There are still some AIX >> issues with V3, but they seem to be well on the path to >> resolution.) >> >> If you have objections to this plan (i.e., you need the V2 >> sources to continue your work), you should: >> >> - Try hard to get V3 working on your platform. >> >> - Complain to me. Explain why you can't switch to V3, and what >> you need in order to make that happen. Andrew> Do you really want to do this? Andrew> Wouldn't it be better to take a more staggered approach? Andrew> First release a GCC with both v2 and v3 ABI support and Andrew> then release a successor that only contains v3 support. We could do that. The SC decided a while back *not* to do that, but it/we could change its/our collective mind. The issue is that the new ABI implies the use of V3; V2 does not work with the new ABI. We want to stop breaking the C++ ABI; that's one major impetus for GCC 3.0. If we provide both ABIs, we're encouraging people to use the old ABI, which is not quite the same as what was in GCC 2.95.x, but is also not what we want to use going forward. The attitude at the time the release criteria were put together was that you could always use GCC 2.95 if you wanted an ABI compatible with GCC 2.95. :-) In other words, there was a conscious decision not to support the old ABI in GCC 3.0, with the hope of never again chaging the C++ ABI. Andrew> I expect many people to try to use GCC with pre installed Andrew> tools (GDB comes to mind). Requiring people to upgrade to Andrew> some not-yet-even-developed version of random tools is Andrew> going to raise a few eyebrows. Nowadays, what tends to happen for GNU/Linux users is that somebody (Debian, Red Hat, etc) puts together a nice package with everyting in it. I wouldn't expect GCC 3.0 to appear in those distributions until other tools are in place. You're correct that users that aren't getting their GNU diet spoon-fed to them (:-)) may have to download development versions of some supporting tools. If we wait until all those tools are ready, though, we'll likely be waiting a long time... -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 0:55 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 3:32 ` Marc Espie 2000-11-20 5:53 ` Joseph S. Myers 2000-11-20 8:34 ` Mark Mitchell [not found] ` <00112021562300.00259@hallo> 1 sibling, 2 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Marc Espie @ 2000-11-20 3:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: mark; +Cc: gcc In article < 20001120005458Q.mitchell@codesourcery.com > you write: >Nowadays, what tends to happen for GNU/Linux users is that somebody >(Debian, Red Hat, etc) puts together a nice package with everyting in >it. I wouldn't expect GCC 3.0 to appear in those distributions until >other tools are in place. You're correct that users that aren't >getting their GNU diet spoon-fed to them (:-)) may have to download >development versions of some supporting tools. If we wait until all >those tools are ready, though, we'll likely be waiting a long time... Well, some other people take a more conservative approach and don't want to unleash DEVELOPMENT code on the general public. I still think it is completely, utterly WRONG to release development code in a so-called `stable' release. If anything, it gives the impression that free software is put together hastily, and does work slightly better than windows, but with lots of bugs. How about trying to entice the OTHER projects that are maintained by the FSF to keep track and get a somewhat DECENT release schedule ? I could even put forward a majorly NEW concept: how about having RELEASE DATES for RELATED gnu projects ? Namely, you've got what we would call a toolchain (binutils, gcc, gdb...). How about releasing a STABLE version every year (say, 1st of january) ? and ensuring that the current year versions work together ? The one thing I do agree is that this is NOT FUN STUFF AT ALL. Well, ethically, `free software' is not always fun. Having a heck of a good time hacking also means a few hours should be sunk into the not funny parts. Like documenting, or offering a wee little bit of support for stable versions. In my opinion, the reason it does not quite work now is that most people just work on the stuff that's fun for them. There are a few contributors who DO deal with the `unnice' parts of it... (Invariably, they are also the guys who don't really have the time for that) not enough though (for instance, have a look at gcc's info documentation. It's incomplete. Why ? because people want to write code, not documentation). If you are a gcc contributor, ask yourself that question: what have you done for gcc last year ? Was it all a fun hobby, or did you also help with other chores ? If not, WHY NOT ??? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 3:32 ` Marc Espie @ 2000-11-20 5:53 ` Joseph S. Myers 2000-11-20 8:34 ` Mark Mitchell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Joseph S. Myers @ 2000-11-20 5:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Marc Espie; +Cc: mark, gcc On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Marc Espie wrote: > (for instance, have > a look at gcc's info documentation. It's incomplete. Why ? because people want > to write code, not documentation). I have proposed in <URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2000-11/msg00381.html > that documentation be a mandatory part of patches for which it is applicable. Hopefully this proposal is being considered. -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 3:32 ` Marc Espie 2000-11-20 5:53 ` Joseph S. Myers @ 2000-11-20 8:34 ` Mark Mitchell 1 sibling, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: espie; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Espie <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr> writes: Marc> Well, some other people take a more conservative approach Marc> and don't want to unleash DEVELOPMENT code on the general Marc> public. In at least a narrow interpretation, we're not talking about that. The GCC code will be tested, stable, etc. The issue is whether or not all the supporting tools will have caught up. I hope they will have, and as GCC people, we should encourage those people to catch up. But, everyone has their own priorities, and exactly what the GDB folks (for example) are up to is not something the GCC SC really knows about. This is a weakness is the free software development model: there isn't a global, centralizing authority to make everything happen in a coordinated way. Companies (Red Hat, SuSE, etc.) have sprung up to provide that value add. And that lack of central authority is also the strength of the free software model. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <00112021562300.00259@hallo>]
* Re: Removal of V2 code [not found] ` <00112021562300.00259@hallo> @ 2000-11-20 14:58 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 14:14 ` Geoff Keating 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-20 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw) To: hartmut.schirmer; +Cc: gcc [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 642 bytes --] >>>>> "Hartmut" == Hartmut Schirmer <hartmut.schirmer@arcormail.de> writes: Hartmut> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Mark Mitchell wrote: >> The attitude at the time the release criteria were put together >> was that you could always use GCC 2.95 if you wanted an ABI >> compatible with GCC 2.95. :-) Hartmut> But we´re waiting for gcc 2.95.3 for more than a year now Hartmut> :(( There aren't currently any plans for such a release, but the Steering Committe is debating such a release even as we speak. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-20 14:58 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 14:14 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 15:06 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-21 14:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: gcc [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 735 bytes --] Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> writes: > >>>>> "Hartmut" == Hartmut Schirmer <hartmut.schirmer@arcormail.de> writes: > > Hartmut> On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, Mark Mitchell wrote: > >> The attitude at the time the release criteria were put together > >> was that you could always use GCC 2.95 if you wanted an ABI > >> compatible with GCC 2.95. :-) > > Hartmut> But we´re waiting for gcc 2.95.3 for more than a year now > Hartmut> :(( > > There aren't currently any plans for such a release, but the Steering > Committe is debating such a release even as we speak. Are there records of such debates anywhere? Minutes of meetings, mailing list archives, etc.? -- - Geoffrey Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 14:14 ` Geoff Keating @ 2000-11-21 15:06 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 16:08 ` Tom Tromey 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 15:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: geoffk; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Geoff" == Geoff Keating <geoffk@geoffk.org> writes: Geoff> Are there records of such debates anywhere? Minutes of Geoff> meetings, mailing list archives, etc.? Not to my knowledge. I believe that in general the details of SC discussions are considered confidential in order to encourage frank exchanges of ideas among the SC members. I could be wrong about that, but that's how I've always treated other people's SC postings. If I'm right, that would make releasing any such archives inappropriate. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 15:06 ` Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 16:08 ` Tom Tromey 2000-11-21 21:41 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 1 reply; 37+ messages in thread From: Tom Tromey @ 2000-11-21 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Mark Mitchell; +Cc: GCC Hackers Mark> I believe that in general the details of SC discussions are Mark> considered confidential in order to encourage frank exchanges of Mark> ideas among the SC members. I could be wrong about that, but Mark> that's how I've always treated other people's SC postings. If Mark> I'm right, that would make releasing any such archives Mark> inappropriate. What is it about release schedules that makes it important to discuss them secretly? I think having a debate about whether to release 2.95.3 should happen in public. In fact, the debate will probably happen anyway, whether the SC wants it or not. I know we've discussed it several times on the Java list (mostly in terms of "I don't know if there will be one, since it is only discussed in secret"). Tom ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
* Re: Removal of V2 code 2000-11-21 16:08 ` Tom Tromey @ 2000-11-21 21:41 ` Mark Mitchell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 37+ messages in thread From: Mark Mitchell @ 2000-11-21 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tromey; +Cc: gcc >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@cygnus.com> writes: Mark> I believe that in general the details of SC discussions are Mark> considered confidential in order to encourage frank Mark> exchanges of ideas among the SC members. I could be wrong Mark> about that, but that's how I've always treated other Mark> people's SC postings. If I'm right, that would make Mark> releasing any such archives inappropriate. Tom> What is it about release schedules that makes it important to Tom> discuss them secretly? Nothing in particular. I was just trying to answer the question as to why there are no mail archives and such. -- Mark Mitchell mark@codesourcery.com CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 37+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2000-11-21 21:41 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 37+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2000-11-20 8:55 Removal of V2 code Kaveh R. Ghazi 2000-11-20 9:46 ` sun/os as release candidate was: " Robert Lipe 2000-11-20 17:59 ` Gerald Pfeifer 2000-11-20 9:47 ` law -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 2000-11-20 13:54 Richard Kenner 2000-11-20 14:59 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 8:49 Richard Kenner 2000-11-20 11:11 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 17:40 Billinghurst, David (CRTS) [not found] <Mark> [not found] ` <Mitchell's> [not found] ` <message> [not found] ` <of> [not found] ` <"Sun,> [not found] ` <19> [not found] ` <Nov> [not found] ` <2000> [not found] ` <13:03:48> [not found] ` <-0800> 2000-11-19 13:03 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 17:10 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 17:24 ` Christopher Faylor 2000-11-19 17:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 20:24 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 21:52 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-19 22:12 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-19 22:33 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 1:07 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 2:11 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 10:56 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 12:20 ` Benjamin Kosnik 2000-11-21 12:45 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 12:37 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 12:47 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 2:54 ` Franz Sirl 2000-11-21 6:38 ` Franz Sirl 2000-11-21 7:26 ` Daniel Berlin 2000-11-20 0:41 ` Andrew Cagney 2000-11-20 0:55 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-20 3:32 ` Marc Espie 2000-11-20 5:53 ` Joseph S. Myers 2000-11-20 8:34 ` Mark Mitchell [not found] ` <00112021562300.00259@hallo> 2000-11-20 14:58 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 14:14 ` Geoff Keating 2000-11-21 15:06 ` Mark Mitchell 2000-11-21 16:08 ` Tom Tromey 2000-11-21 21:41 ` Mark Mitchell
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).