Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 12:44:21 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Paul Seniura <pdseniura@techie.com> Cc: Scott Long <scottl@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: about the gcc 3.4.x problems Message-ID: <20040729174420.GA9911@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <20040729164738.523C85CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> References: <20040729144205.6ABEF5CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us> <20040729164738.523C85CA2@techpc04.okladot.state.ok.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040729174420.GA9911>