Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 00:10:50 -0800 From: Navdeep Parhar <np@FreeBSD.org> To: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, Luigi Rizzo <rizzo@iet.unipi.it> Subject: Re: svn commit: r276485 - in head/sys: conf dev/cxgbe modules/cxgbe/if_cxgbe Message-ID: <20150121081050.GA4505@ox> In-Reply-To: <98838DA6-1969-4764-83DE-71F7BB568E23@FreeBSD.org> References: <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> <20150121055329.GB3307@ox> <98838DA6-1969-4764-83DE-71F7BB568E23@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 09:00:03AM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2015, at 06:53, Navdeep Parhar <np@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> Alternatively, just use the ${GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS} Makefile macro, which
> I specifically introduced for this issue.
Ah, a rose with another name. I'm happy to use this but it's not clear why
there is a GCC in the macro's name when clang deals with -fms-extensions
just as well. (It's not even clear why the longer ${GCC_MS_EXTENSIONS}
should be preferred to -fms-extentions. Isn't this like #define ONE 1 ?)
In any case I'm perfectly fine with any change that doesn't involve a commit
from me to gcc.
Regards,
Navdeep
>
> See e.g. sys/modules/ibcore/Makefile for an example.
>
> -Dimitry
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20150121081050.GA4505>