From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 25 10:28:29 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 40B4016A4CE for ; Tue, 25 May 2004 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com (webmail-outgoing.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.67]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3E8143D2F for ; Tue, 25 May 2004 10:28:28 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from pdseniura@techie.com) Received: from wfilter.us4.outblaze.com (wfilter.us4.outblaze.com [205.158.62.180])57C7D180209A for ; Tue, 25 May 2004 17:27:16 +0000 (GMT) X-OB-Received: from unknown (205.158.62.178) by wfilter.us4.outblaze.com; 25 May 2004 17:26:49 -0000 Received: by ws1-14.us4.outblaze.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 155A1790046; Tue, 25 May 2004 17:27:16 +0000 (GMT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: MIME-tools 5.41 (Entity 5.404) Received: from [192.149.244.9] by ws1-14.us4.outblaze.com with http for pdseniura@techie.com; Tue, 25 May 2004 11:27:16 -0600 From: "P.D. Seniura" To: "Mark Linimon" Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 11:27:16 -0600 X-Originating-Ip: 192.149.244.9 X-Originating-Server: ws1-14.us4.outblaze.com Message-Id: <20040525172716.155A1790046@ws1-14.us4.outblaze.com> cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org cc: Alex Dupre Subject: compiler bugs (was Re: lang/ezm3 "runtime error: Segmentation violation...") 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: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:28:29 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Linimon Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 17:27:00 -0500 (CDT) To: "P.D. Seniura" Subject: Re: lang/ezm3 "runtime error: Segmentation violation..." > > Do we blame the code or the compiler? > > One of the things I just added to the PR Submission Guidelines is > to explain what AFAICT is the current practice within FreeBSD with > respect to anything other than -O: be prepared to send patches. > Apparently few developers have sufficient time/understanding/interest. > Executive summary: there's just not enough manpower. > > Again, AFAICT. Not having seen it mentioned yet on the PR submission website (does your guideline change need to go thru channels first?), all I can say is pretty-much what I said back in April. I hit reproducable -O bugs with the gcc snapshots back then; now I see it happens (rarely) with the -Current system gcc, which again is a snapshot (still). At least some of the -O bugs are known to the GCC team themselves. I explained some of my wrestlin' with it back in mid-April: please see . Back then we had snapshots. Since then, the compilers have been released. We don't yet have the released versions -- and this is the point I am trying to make. (I should've included that April link to my msg here, to tie this together.) No use in wasting manpower on snapshots when there is a final release. Also, I mentioned back in April that since the gcc code is patched by FreeBSD's ports system, for whatever reason, I cannot feel good about logging bugs at the GCC website. The only place I can do so is 'here'. I said it in April and say again that if optimization levels work well on say Linux/i386, using the same compiler, they should work on FreeBSD/i386, too. I really wish manpower would be expended on providing trustful current tools, I don't know what else could be so important, it should go without saying. ;) If TPTB would let me, I'd stop what I'm doing and try helping on the released compilers. Since we want to prove our points with 'free' software, icc and other co$tly software is moot. At home, my G4 Sawtooth has everything working (OSX Panther XCode), and that's where I saw -Os being used as _default_ on gcc-3.3 (and mentioned in April). But I cannot convince TPTB here to try anything non-Intel-ish. Politics... I don't do that well... ;) I'm hoping the _released_ compilers would have -Os fixed on the i386 side. That's been my main point. I'm now hitting this _known_ bug on the -Current system compiler (still a snapshot, albeit occurring very rarely, but it sure wasted several days here trying to figure out why apps linking with -lXaw kept griping about an undefined .L91). I say 'known bug' meaning "known to the GCC team" and IMO not much a FreeBSD maintainer can do about it other than report it to them (I've recreated it twice already, takes about an hour for this puny pentium2 to compile XFree-libraries and test it again). Thanks for letting me spew about it again. I'll try helping as much as possible. > mcl -- thx, Paul Seniura. -- ___________________________________________________________ Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm