From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1286 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2004 00:46:00 -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 1190 invoked from network); 13 Jan 2004 00:45:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jan 2004 00:45:59 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AgCgs-0008RP-W8 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2004 19:45:54 -0500 Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: gcc 3.5 integration branch proposal Message-ID: <20040113004553.GA23498@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <90200277-4301-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110002526.GA13568@disaster.jaj.com> <82D6F34E-4306-11D8-BDBD-000A95B1F520@apple.com> <20040110154129.GA28152@disaster.jaj.com> <1073935323.3458.42.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <1073951351.3458.162.camel@minax.codesourcery.com> <20040113000554.GB599@nevyn.them.org> <20040112162850.A3834@synopsys.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040112162850.A3834@synopsys.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00760.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 04:28:50PM -0800, Joe Buck wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2004 at 07:05:54PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > "Same high quality"? I know you're aware of them, but you might want > > to revisit the reasons that _no vendor_ I know of in several years has > > shipped an FSF released compiler. > > For this message I'm taking off the SC hat and putting on the corporate user > hat. > > My employer uses FSF-released compilers in preference to those > vendor-hacked compilers to develop its commericial products. That's > because we can't have one GCC compiler for GNU/Linux and another one with > a different set of bugs for Solaris, and because we usually need a newer > compiler and an older OS version. That's a good reason I hadn't considered. > > Even Debian, which is chronically > > short of the talented manpower required for compiler development, ships > > fifteen hundred lines of GCC patches plus a bleeding edge 3.3-cvs > > snapshot last I checked. > > That's inaccurate in several respects. First, Debian has not shipped > yet; you are describing what is in their testing branch. Second, most of > the 1500 lines do not touch the gcc source itself, but create the > Debian-specific files for their packaging system. AFAIK, Debian is > assuming that their 3.3-cvs compiler will correspond to 3.3.3 by the > time sarge is shipped. By doing what they are doing, the Debian people > are finding bugs in 3.3.x that no one else is finding (thanks to their > ports to platforms that would otherwise get little use). No, that's incorrect on a few counts: - The last Debian release did the same thing. Of course, that was the 2.95 branch. - If history is any judge, Debian will end up staying with some particular branch snapshot based on when every other piece of the Debian release comes together. There's only minor preference towards release tarballs and at this date I don't think another bump is likely before sarge. - I was only counting the patches to the source. There's another fifteen _thousand_ lines of assorted documentation and packaging. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer