Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 09:33:27 -0600 (MDT) From: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> To: Paul Seniura <pdseniura@techie.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: about the gcc 3.4.x problems Message-ID: <20040729091735.G32601@pooker.samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <20040729144205.6ABEF5CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> References: <20040729023259.GA47439@freefall.freebsd.org><200407280312.i6S3C39q070966@repoman.freebsd.org><20040728205444.GA51189@volt.iem.pw.edu.pl><20040402210539.70E945C3B@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040729144205.6ABEF5CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Jul 2004, Paul Seniura wrote: > > In my neck of the woods 'round here, problems with GCC 3.4.x are > not new. For history's sake if nothing else, please take a look > at a msg thread I started on this list back in April 2004: > <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040402210539.70E945C3B>; > > We were _never_ able to compile kernels with 3.4.x -- there were > too many options & other things that are no longer supported. Most of the problems that you site here and elsewhere have already been resolved. Alexander has spent an _INCREDIBLE_ amount of time on gcc 3.4. What he imported is not the same as what you might have installed from the ports tree back in April. He also spent quite a bit of effort to resolve coding problems that trip up gcc 3.4. So maybe you should actually update your system to the post gcc-3.4 import and actually see if it works rather than making assumptions that it doesn't. There are a few problems that are still being resolved, but that is quite normal after a major compiler update. > > I was attempting to notify y'all about various problems with the > newer GCCs WAY IN ADVANCE to hopefully get someone here to help me > fix these problems. IMO there is no excuse for these bugs at the > current time. It just seems to me everyone ignored my original > posts (and other people's) about these problems. If someone had > done "homework" right here on the -current@ maillist, that person > would've known more testing was in order before committing this > 3.4.x change. I never got much useful feedback from that > April 2004 thread. > > The problems with -Os and 3.4.x were known to the GCC team > themselves, too. Pointers to this bit of info should be in the > mentioned April 2004 thread. I also mentioned therein about how > I could not feel right in logging a bug at the GCC website due to > the FreeBSD patches being applied on top of their code. I do not > know where the culprit is -- in GCC's src or in FreeBSD's patches? -Os has never been a supported option for compiling the system on FreeBSD. There is an effort to make -O2 work, but that is also not officially supported yet. Many of the problems are due to FreeBSD code, of course, but this is a long standing issue and has little bearing on the success of the gcc 3.4 import. > > > Now... I have another bit of New Info to add to this discussion. > > Apple is planning on using GCC 3.5 for the next big overhaul in > OSX called 'Tiger'. This has been massively publicly reported in > the usual circles, so I'm not "spilling beans" about anything > covered in the NDA. BTW I'm not sure if the Tiger pre-release at > the WWDC includes GCC 3.5 in its version of XCode (TPTB here > won't pay for such trips, nor will they pay for a higher ADC > account, so I'm not privvy to the new preview software), but at > any rate GCC 3.5 _is_ slated to be in XCode 2.0 when Tiger goes > final. > > Currently we are still using GCC 3.3 in Panther XCode 1.2. > > Here, then, is a point I need to make: > > Why is Apple seemingly skipping GCC 3.4.x altogether? > So is there a conspiracy against gcc 3.4 that we don't know about? Do you have information that could help us here? Or maybe Apple is just being prudent and targeting XCode and GCC releases to somewhat coincide. That seems to satisfy occums razor a whole lot easier. > To me this really looks like 3.4.x was having problems for them, > too. 3.4.x plain ain't ready for prime time PERIOD. > Are there documented facts to back this up? Again, your tests from April aren't terribly relevant anymore since everything has changed quite a bit from then. > I never got much useful feedback from my April 2004 thread. > So I had to drop our tests of GCC 3.4.x. > > I'm *extremely disappointed* of many things going on in the past > few months (yanking MIDI support was #1 before this). I'm trying > to be involved in as much of -current as I can. And many of my > own-initiated discussions seem to go no-where real fast. > > And then *BOOM* we are forced to use GCC 3.4.x with known bugs & all. > This surpasses yanking MIDI in my #1 Gripe List. FreeBSD is not like other well-known open source operating systems. The compiler is integrated into the OS, not an optional component that can be switched at will. This has good sides and bad sides. However, the gcc import wasn't done on a whim. It wasn't like Alexander got off a weekend bender and decided to do it because he was bored. It was heavily discussed and coorinated in just about every way that it could be. For you to suggest otherwise is incredibly rude. As for Midi, I'm sure that the maintainer would be interested in whatever constructive conversation you have, and might even be interested in code that you might have developed to help resolve the situation. Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040729091735.G32601>