Date: 22 Apr 1999 09:08:48 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <lowell@world.std.com> To: Jack Freelander <jack@rabbit.eng.miami.edu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cc in 3.1-STABLE Message-ID: <rd6g15sg5un.fsf@world.std.com> In-Reply-To: Jack Freelander's message of Thu, 22 Apr 1999 01:30:26 -0400 (EDT) References: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9904220123560.11908-100000@rabbit.eng.miami.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Jack Freelander <jack@rabbit.eng.miami.edu> writes:
> I have run into many odd errors on eeyore that have not occurred since I
> upgraded rabbit to 3.1-RELEASE (which is appartently identical to 3.1-STABLE
> on the ftp sites):
Um, hmm.
lrwxr-xr-x 1 69 0 25 Mar 10 09:29 3.1-RELEASE -> releases/i386/3.1-RELEASE
lrwxr-xr-x 1 69 0 25 Mar 15 08:56 3.1-STABLE -> releases/i386/3.1-RELEASE
The latest 3.1-STABLE release is, in fact, 3.1-RELEASE. Under the
current versioning system, I'm not sure why it makes sense to keep
those separate, but you're missing the subtle distinction between a
-STABLE release and the latest code on the -STABLE branch. If you
want to track -STABLE, see the handbook pages on the subject.
If you want to download a more up-to-date (but not "release") -STABLE,
look in /pub/FreeBSD/snapshots/i386 on your nearest mirror. But the
handbook recommends cvsup, and for most purposes I would agree.
> cc core dumps and can hardly compile anything. I cannot rebuild the kernel,
> I can't make gcc, or zsh or bash..sometimes, however, simply retyping 'make'
> will allow the compliation process to go beyond where it died, so that it
> can die at a new stage in a few seconds.
You don't tell us what the compiler error *is*, so those of us without
psychic talents can't give you a real diagnosis of your problem. The
first thing to look at, unfortunately, is your hardware, particularly
since you have a similar machine running similar software without such
problems. If the compiler is catching signal 11 (segmentation
violation), for example, bad RAM is a pretty good bet.
Incidentally, the standard system cc *is* gcc, albeit derived from a
somewhat old gcc release.
> Does FreeBSD work correctly with AMD chips?
Yes.
> Are there any known problems with cc under 3.1-STABLE?
Not of the sort that I think you're asking about.
> Why is there a distinction between 3.1-STABLE and 3.1-RELEASE? If the bugs
> have been fixed, why keep them around?
I *think* that this is because if there were a 3.1.1 released, *it*
would then be both 3.1-STABLE and 3.1.1-RELEASE, but 3.1-RELEASE would
remain. Because FreeBSD is no longer doing three-point releases
(i.e., the next release planned is 3.2 rather than 3.1.1), this is not
as useful as it used to be. And just because bugs have been fixed
does not necessarily mean that the changed code base is less buggy; it
may have had other bugs introduced, possibly in the fixing of the
original bugs.
If you don't have a particular reason for wanting to upgrade from the
3.1 release, I don't think anyone else has a really compelling one for
you either. It's not as though there are security advisories out
against 3.1.
Be well.
Lowell Gilbert
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?rd6g15sg5un.fsf>