public inbox for gcc@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
To: obrien@FreeBSD.org
Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Is the gcc-3_3-branch creation still on target?
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 09:36:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <u8elb618ry.fsf@gromit.moeb> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20021004150915.GA19779@dragon.nuxi.com> ("David O'Brien"'s message of "Fri, 4 Oct 2002 08:09:15 -0700")

"David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> writes:

> Are things still on schedule to branch mainline, creating the
> gcc-3_3-branch, on 15-Oct-2002?
>
> FreeBSD 5.0 will use some form of GCC 3.3 snapshot.  I know this isn't
> desired by the GCC Steering Committee to have another "gcc 2.96", but
> FreeBSD has little choice.  It ICE's on many popular packages, X11 as
> just one example.  It has serious optimization bugs for modern x86
> processors, for which the PR's aren't getting fixed.  It has regressions

Honza just fixed and verified a few PRs.  

Just getting off-topic:
Honza, I noticed you commit them this way:

Thu Oct  3 23:15:15 CEST 2002  Jan Hubicka  <jh@suse.cz>

        * i386.h (CPP_SPECS): fix defines for -msse, -msse2, -mpentium2,3.

The rule is to mention the PR number so that everybody knows which
report is fixed, in this case the ChangeLog should be:
       
Thu Oct  3 23:15:15 CEST 2002  Jan Hubicka  <jh@suse.cz>

        PR c/7242
        * i386.h (CPP_SPECS): fix defines for -msse, -msse2, -mpentium2,3.

Can you follow the example please? 

Ok, back to your claims: Did you report everything?  GCC 3.2 (and
neither current CVS from last week) ICEs on Linux/x86 and Linux/x86-64
while compiling X11 nor on any package that is in the current SuSE
distribution for these platforms.  So, please send bug reports that
are reproduceable.

> from 2.95 that aren't getting fixed.  All in all, GCC 3.2 is poo.  There
> needs to be a balance between adding new features, re-abstracting the
> code, etc; and basic usability.  So far the 3.x series has leaned too far
> to the former.  GCC 3.1.1 was the most stable of any of the 3.x
> compilers, but it has a broken C++ ABI and is EOL'ed by the GCC
> developers, which makes it a poor choice to base an OS on.

GCC 3.2 is pretty good, e.g. Mandrake, Red Hat and SuSE use it as
basis for their current Linux distribution.

I understand that you want to switch to 3.3 but I would suggest the
following (that's how we have done it at SuSE and I guess Red Hat did
something similar):
- use the current CVS mainline for your work and test everything with it

- report all bugs that you encounter

- integrate regularly (e.g. using the weekly snapshot) the current CVS
  version into your system and start from the beginning ;-)

- release FreeBSD 3.0 with the final release of GCC 3.3.

This is quite involved but if you follow the development closely, your
permanent testing will help make GCC 3.3 a suitable compiler for your
environment.

Andreas
-- 
 Andreas Jaeger
  SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
   private aj@arthur.inka.de
    http://www.suse.de/~aj

  parent reply	other threads:[~2002-10-04 16:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2002-10-04  8:23 David O'Brien
2002-10-04  8:50 ` H. J. Lu
2002-10-04  9:29   ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04  9:34     ` H. J. Lu
2002-10-04  9:44       ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04  9:47         ` H. J. Lu
2002-10-04  9:53           ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 10:02             ` H. J. Lu
2002-10-04 10:23               ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 10:28                 ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-10-04 10:06         ` Zack Weinberg
2002-10-04 10:25         ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-10-04  9:36 ` Andreas Jaeger [this message]
2002-10-04  9:46   ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 10:49     ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-10-04 10:51       ` Jan Hubicka
2002-10-04 11:27         ` Alexander Kabaev
2002-10-04 15:02           ` Richard Henderson
2002-10-04 13:40       ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 14:31         ` Joseph S. Myers
2002-10-09  1:40           ` David O'Brien
2002-10-09 14:43             ` Joe Buck
2002-10-09 21:04               ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 10:47   ` Gerald Pfeifer
2002-10-04 10:50     ` Jan Hubicka
2002-10-04 10:58       ` Andreas Jaeger
2002-10-04 11:29         ` Zack Weinberg
2002-10-04 13:47           ` David O'Brien
2002-10-04 15:23             ` Jan Hubicka
2002-10-04 11:18   ` Phil Edwards

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=u8elb618ry.fsf@gromit.moeb \
    --to=aj@suse.de \
    --cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=obrien@FreeBSD.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).