From owner-svn-src-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 21 05:53:50 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1122DEA5; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:53:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-x232.google.com (mail-pa0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::232]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8DFEA05; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:53:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f50.google.com with SMTP id bj1so50654003pad.9; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:53:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to :references:mime-version:content-type:content-disposition :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=80w0iMhzauGcQpIeSKDAVl68ZDdm98ofM8li9iYtp2U=; b=uBc3DPG1tX3gFyKsqMdmPz6oM7bmBJcS8R6HJirFo7e+5be89X9DyNzt0Uma18fIhZ OErfsVq637LWaVn79EpqatyN4/lGu/24RoZj66N/b2v3novM4LQvTtaYHZls/D4Vm5zG Gc4rcPuiDyE816n/eKt4D1gtbkI13cYXq9YRyshshWFAdmVo2DsdGP5oMOS3brqH+ruH CNSxoSJiACwcqWOeb9nDutfj5fW3wswWQWyPzcVqPIxvlwghThxJz/BVdB3AX0Hn5SOm 7frL9366Dn+zxfiH+MpAuLtK4CqetVZyBOvXcDNfnMyK5hLm+CiX7FP+9RwXbqw8WpKG Yo4A== X-Received: by 10.70.91.201 with SMTP id cg9mr24449679pdb.57.1421819629437; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:53:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from ox ([24.6.44.228]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ds16sm1732557pdb.65.2015.01.20.21.53.47 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:53:48 -0800 (PST) Sender: Navdeep Parhar Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 21:53:40 -0800 From: Navdeep Parhar To: Pedro Giffuni Subject: Re: svn commit: r276485 - in head/sys: conf dev/cxgbe modules/cxgbe/if_cxgbe Message-ID: <20150121055329.GB3307@ox> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Giffuni , Adrian Chadd , Luigi Rizzo , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" References: <201412312319.sBVNJHca031041@svn.freebsd.org> <20150106203344.GB26068@ox> <54BEE07A.3070207@FreeBSD.org> <54BEE305.6020905@FreeBSD.org> <54BEF7CF.9030505@FreeBSD.org> <20150121021905.GA73548@FreeBSD.org> <54BF1EB0.2080901@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <54BF1EB0.2080901@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Adrian Chadd , "src-committers@freebsd.org" , Luigi Rizzo , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: svn-src-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: "SVN commit messages for the entire src tree \(except for " user" and " projects" \)" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 05:53:50 -0000 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 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