From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 29 17:44:22 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 740C316A4CE; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:44:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FF2543D53; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:44:22 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) id i6THiLCH043874; Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:44:21 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:44:21 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Paul Seniura Message-ID: <20040729174420.GA9911@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20040729144205.6ABEF5CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040729164738.523C85CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040729164738.523C85CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.2-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: Scott Long Subject: Re: about the gcc 3.4.x problems X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 17:44:22 -0000 In the last episode (Jul 29), Paul Seniura said: > Scott Long wrote: > > -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. > > Okay I am also on record here about the -Os being the DEFAULT SETTING on > Apple's XCode "deployment" environment. It _needs_ to be supported. (I'm > wondering just how much history y'all have And that's not a problem. There there are just X thousand lines of code in /usr/src that have never been tested with -Os. That's the only reason that -Os and -O2 are not "officially" supported. I have built worlds using -O2 with absolutely no problems for a few years. That may just be that I'm not using the programs that have bugs uncovered by -O2 (a libalias bug only seen under -O2 was recently fixed, I believe). Build with -Os, and if you find bugs, send-pr them. > >> 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. > > I said "seemingly". > It makes sense to me.[tm] > It is something to think about. I also suspect it's just a timing thing. Apple is intensly interested in precompiled headers and other compiler speedups because their system uses a lots of complex templates. 3.5 is supposed to be the "go-faster" release. > Have you searched the mail archives here to find out what's > been said during the past few months? Again I'm sure some > of us including myself have mentioned the -fformat-extensions > problem at several points. Having most modules linked with > libstdc(++) in the i386-portbld-freebsd5.2 subdir is not too > kosher, too. I mentioned all kinds of things like that. In general, C++ object files are not portable across different gcc releases, since they fix ABI bugs in every release. Code built with 3.4 may not link to an old 3.3 libstdc++, thus the dependency on the port's own libstdc++. I don't see a problem here. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com