Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:53:40 -0800 From: Navdeep Parhar <np@FreeBSD.org> To: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r276485 - in head/sys: conf dev/cxgbe modules/cxgbe/if_cxgbe Message-ID: <20150121055329.GB3307@ox> In-Reply-To: <54BF1EB0.2080901@FreeBSD.org> References: <201412312319.sBVNJHca031041@svn.freebsd.org> <CA%2BhQ2%2Bh29RObCONCd8Nu_W92CnJ9jHMZdRBqiU9hu78D3SwUDA@mail.gmail.com> <20150106203344.GB26068@ox> <54BEE07A.3070207@FreeBSD.org> <54BEE305.6020905@FreeBSD.org> <54BEF7CF.9030505@FreeBSD.org> <20150121021905.GA73548@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmokL2jq_Kh2CF30G%2BEk63Gab316i6atEN_7gYA8gzDEYNw@mail.gmail.com> <54BF1EB0.2080901@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:36:16PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > > On 01/20/15 22:06, Adrian Chadd wrote: > >On 20 January 2015 at 18:19, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 07:50:23PM -0500, Pedro Giffuni wrote: > >>>But the fix is rather ugly, isn't it? I would personally prefer to just > >>>kill the older gcc but in the meantime updating it so that it behaves > >>>like the updated gcc/clang would be better. IMHO. > >>Seconded. Putting extra harness on the code to avoid bugs in the compiler > >>that were actually fixed upsteam is totally bogus. > >Right, but: > > > >* not all of us work on compilers; > >* not all of us want to currently be working on compilers; > >* some of us have to use the gcc that's in tree; > >* .. and apparently updating that gcc to something > 4.2 is verboten. > > The external toolchain can't be that bad(?). > > >So if someone wants to help Navdeep by backporting those options, > > Hmm .. didn't I post a patch? > > >please do. I bet he'd love the help. > > > Ugh he doesn't and TBH, I don't care enough to look for > consensus either. Let's please just move on from this discussion then. I am not familiar with gcc internals so I can't vouch for this patch, and gcc is the default compiler on platforms that I cannot test. Given that, it would be reckless of me to push a gcc patch just to get it to play nice with one single file in the tree. High risk, little reward (given that -fms-extensions can be applied to just the file in question without disturbing anything else in the tree). Regards, Navdeep
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150121055329.GB3307>