RE: 3.2 and 3.3 release questions

RE: 3.2 and 3.3 release questions

[BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1)]

Hallo Gerald,

Thanks for the fast response!

Thank you for updating the web page, it looks fine now.  If you
want a nitpick, the text in footnote 1 should read "Note that no
distinction is made between patches that are themselves buggy
and patches that expose latent bugs elsewhere in the compiler."

To be clear, the way that sentence is written, it should use "that"
instead of "which" and there is no need to put "latent" in quotes.
You only need "which" when introducing a dependent clause (usually
with commas) like "My house, which is blue, is on the south side of
a quiet street."  I'm betting that note was written by one of my
fellow Americans--we always get that wrong!  :-)

Thank you also for the information on the ABI for 3.2.x and 3.3.x.
Can you point me to any document that talks about the details of
the changes?

best regards,
Matt

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gerald Pfeifer [mailto:pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at]
>> Sent: Saturday, October 05, 2002 3:16 AM
>> To: BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1)
>> Cc: gcc@gnu.org
>> Subject: Re: 3.2 and 3.3 release questions
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1) wrote:
>> > Since I'm sure your time for Q&A is limited, here's the 
>> short version:
>> >
>> > 1. Is the ABI stable as of 3.2 or are more changes planned?
>> 
>> If you ask whether the ABI will be unchanged between 3.2, 3.2.1,
>> and 3.2.2, the answer is Yes.
>> 
>> > 2. Are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 releases still planned?
>> 
>> 3.2.1 for sure, 3.2.2 possibly (probably depending on the 
>> actual release
>> dates of 3.2.1 and 3.3.)
>> 
>> > 3. Does 3.3 change the ABI from 3.2?
>> 
>> It's my understanding that 3.3 will be ABI-compatible with 
>> 3.2 either a)
>> out of the box, or b) by provding a flag which requests this 
>> compliance.
>> 
>> > With the apparently fairly stable release of 3.2, we are looking at
>> > migrating again.  My first and main question is "what is the plan
>> > with respect to the ABI?"  Is it now hoped to be stable, or are
>> > further changes planned?
>> 
>> We are, unfortunately, aware of several problems in GCC 3.2 
>> which already
>> have been fixed on mainline (which will become GCC 3.3). 
>> These fixed are
>> keyed to an internal flag, but as far as I know it has not yet been
>> decided what the default setting of that flag will be in GCC 3.3.
>> 
>> > As a secondary question, are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 still 
>> planned?  The web
>> > page claims a Sep 15 2002 release for 3.2.1, but I see 
>> only a dubious
>> > mention of it on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html , where
>> > first the page says it's about 3.2 and then says it's about 3.2.1.
>> 
>> This I'll shortly adress both issues by updating that page. 3.2.1 has
>> not been released yet.
>> 
>> > If any of these questions are covered on web pages I 
>> should have read,
>> > by all means point me at them and I'll try to read more 
>> carefully next
>> > time.
>> 
>> If you have any further questions (or updates/patches for 
>> the web page),
>> please do not hesitate!
>> 
>> Gerald
>> -- 
>> Gerald "Jerry" pfeifer@dbai.tuwien.ac.at 
>> http://www.dbai.tuwien.ac.at/~pfeifer/
>> 

RE: 3.2 and 3.3 release questions

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1) wrote:
> Thanks for the fast response!

Well, it took a bit longer this time. :-/

> Thank you for updating the web page, it looks fine now.  If you
> want a nitpick, the text in footnote 1 should read "Note that no
> distinction is made between patches that are themselves buggy
> and patches that expose latent bugs elsewhere in the compiler."

Thanks for the note and the more detailed explanation (on "which"
versus "that")!  I'll shortly apply the patch you'll find at the
end of this message.

> Thank you also for the information on the ABI for 3.2.x and 3.3.x.
> Can you point me to any document that talks about the details of
> the changes?

Unfortunately we don't have such a document yet(?), though I agree
it would be nice to have one.

Gerald

Index: develop.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/gcc/wwwdocs/htdocs/develop.html,v
retrieving revision 1.20
diff -u -3 -p -r1.20 develop.html
--- develop.html	5 Oct 2002 10:41:24 -0000	1.20
+++ develop.html	14 Oct 2002 19:48:28 -0000
@@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ stages of development, branch points, an
 <hr />

 <p id="one">[1] Note that no distinction is made between patches which are
-themselves buggy and patches which expose "latent" bugs elsewhere in
+themselves buggy and patches that expose latent bugs elsewhere in
 the compiler.</p>

 <p id="two">[2] The Steering Committee is planning to prepare a list of such

Re: 3.2 and 3.3 release questions

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Fri, 4 Oct 2002, BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1) wrote:
> Since I'm sure your time for Q&A is limited, here's the short version:
>
> 1. Is the ABI stable as of 3.2 or are more changes planned?

If you ask whether the ABI will be unchanged between 3.2, 3.2.1,
and 3.2.2, the answer is Yes.

> 2. Are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 releases still planned?

3.2.1 for sure, 3.2.2 possibly (probably depending on the actual release
dates of 3.2.1 and 3.3.)

> 3. Does 3.3 change the ABI from 3.2?

It's my understanding that 3.3 will be ABI-compatible with 3.2 either a)
out of the box, or b) by provding a flag which requests this compliance.

> With the apparently fairly stable release of 3.2, we are looking at
> migrating again.  My first and main question is "what is the plan
> with respect to the ABI?"  Is it now hoped to be stable, or are
> further changes planned?

We are, unfortunately, aware of several problems in GCC 3.2 which already
have been fixed on mainline (which will become GCC 3.3). These fixed are
keyed to an internal flag, but as far as I know it has not yet been
decided what the default setting of that flag will be in GCC 3.3.

> As a secondary question, are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 still planned?  The web
> page claims a Sep 15 2002 release for 3.2.1, but I see only a dubious
> mention of it on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html , where
> first the page says it's about 3.2 and then says it's about 3.2.1.

This I'll shortly adress both issues by updating that page. 3.2.1 has
not been released yet.

> If any of these questions are covered on web pages I should have read,
> by all means point me at them and I'll try to read more carefully next
> time.

If you have any further questions (or updates/patches for the web page),
please do not hesitate!

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

3.2 and 3.3 release questions

[BONNER,MATT (HP-Vancouver,ex1)]

Hi,

First, I want to say thanks for all the incredible work on GCC over
the years.  I first used it in I think 1990 on an Ultrix machine,
where not only did gcc run faster than the native DEC compiler, the
code it produced also ran faster than the DEC-compiled binary.  I've
been a fan ever since.  So thanks.

Since I'm sure your time for Q&A is limited, here's the short version:

1. Is the ABI stable as of 3.2 or are more changes planned?
2. Are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 releases still planned?
3. Does 3.3 change the ABI from 3.2?

Good job providing the roadmap page, too.

thanks,
Matt

Long version that isn't so rude and explains a bit more, but still
asks the same questions:

We are currently using g++ 2.95.3 for a 3 platform (HP-UX, Linux and
Cygwin) project, and as you can probably imagine (I can almost see you 
cringe), we have been dreaming of rolling to a more complete C++ 
implementation.  But the progression of changes to the ABI have caused 
us to put off migration so far.

With the apparently fairly stable release of 3.2, we are looking at
migrating again.  My first and main question is "what is the plan 
with respect to the ABI?"  Is it now hoped to be stable, or are
further changes planned?

I read http://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html#future (and good job for 
providing that) and I see the planned existence of 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, 
which I assume would not include ABI changes.  But does 3.3?  I don't 
see any statement on that question one way or the other.

As a secondary question, are 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 still planned?  The web
page claims a Sep 15 2002 release for 3.2.1, but I see only a dubious
mention of it on http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html , where
first the page says it's about 3.2 and then says it's about 3.2.1.

If any of these questions are covered on web pages I should have read,
by all means point me at them and I'll try to read more carefully next
time.
 
thanks,
Matt
--
Matt Bonner
Hewlett-Packard Company
matt.bonner@hp.com