From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14871 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2002 21:58:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 14863 invoked from network); 28 Dec 2002 21:58:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kraid.nerim.net) (62.4.16.101) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 28 Dec 2002 21:58:19 -0000 Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie.gentiane.org [62.212.102.210]) by kraid.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C835E40E31; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:46:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from tetto.gentiane.org (espie@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.2/8.12.1) with ESMTP id gBSLwmFs031673; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:58:48 +0100 (CET) Received: (from espie@localhost) by tetto.gentiane.org (8.12.2/8.12.1/Submit) id gBSLwknK026534; Sat, 28 Dec 2002 22:58:46 +0100 (CET) Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 19:06:00 -0000 From: Marc Espie To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Andrew Pinski , Mark Mitchell , gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: new fails on gcc 3.4, i686-unknown-openbsd3.1 Message-ID: <20021228215845.GA10516@tetto.liafa.jussieu.fr> Reply-To: espie@nerim.net References: <5110B085-1A88-11D7-B063-000393A6D2F2@physics.uc.edu> <20021228175936.GA8760@tetto.liafa.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg01510.txt.bz2 On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 07:49:29PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Dec 28, 2002, Marc Espie wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 03:42:51PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Dec 28, 2002, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> > #define __END_DECLS }; > >> > Note the semicolon after }, that is what is causing it. > >> Looks like a job for fixheaders... They headers are obviously in > >> error. > > Not a job for fixheaders. We have control over our headers, and we > > fix them as needed, when such issues are discovered. > Even for headers that have already been deployed? :-) GCC might help > with those, should Joe R. User decide to install GCC on his older > OpenBSD box that has this header still broken. Define `older'. We churn out new releases every six months, consistently. It's a really bad idea to not update an OpenBSD box, especially since a large proportion of the changes are security fixes, and we almost never deploy incompatible changes... There are loads of reasons why you may not want to use a newer gcc on an older OpenBSD box, especially as there have been fixes all over the place, including the assembler, the linker, and header files... I believe that trying to do a correct job in fix-headers for OpenBSD is a pointless exercise. There are lots of other reasons why a newer gcc won't do much good on an older OpenBSD box. There's a good reason the OpenBSD project doesn't maintain more than two releases back, and only for critical fixes: we don't have the manpower to do so. Instead, we concentrate on making each new release obviously better than the last. (by obviously, I mean that there are no incompatible changes or slow-downs that would make one person question the suitability of the upgrade). And I don't think there's anybody around there who is actually testing newer gcc releases on older OpenBSD releases, to ensure the level of quality we try to achieve with new releases, so really, it's pointless.