On 29 Mar 2015, at 20:01, Arnaud Charlet wrote: >> (cd ada/bldtools/sinfo; gnatmake -q xsinfo ; ./xsinfo sinfo.h ) >> raised PROGRAM_ERROR : s-atocou.adb:57 explicit raise >> >> Looking at this code, it indicates that it is a dummy implementation for >> platforms without an atomic increment support. >> >> hence, I concluded (possibly erroneously) that such support is now >> required in some way. > > No, this definitely looks like something else is wrong. > >> We can try and analyse further (slowish hardware), if necessary - but this is >> repeatable on two different setups. > > Well given the platform and given that your patch only impacts ppc-darwin, > probably not worth it. I suspect there was a latent bug in the target pairs > for this old platform that got exposed recently.
makes sense - there were also 15 acats and 8 gnat regressions. > BTW, what's the plan wrt ppc-darwin and newer versions of GCC? Seems > surprising > for a quickly moving target such as darwin to still want to maintain recent > versions of GCC. On the ppc-side, my QuadG5 is still in daily use (and has been for 10years) - not just building compilers either :-). I guess, when that dies, both interest and ability to maintain the powerpc-darwin port will reduce (the G4s I have running are somewhat too slow for compiler devt). The point of building Ada is more to explore "corner-cases in code-gen" than anything (I doubt there are many Ada users still on powerpc-darwin). Still, one doesn't like to see things broken for no good reason. As far as the X86 side is concerned, in the "non-bleeding-edge-cs" world, as I'm sure you're aware, there are still lots of commercial folks supporting at least 10.6 I have a bunch of core duo hardware also in daily use - which won't support anything > 10.6. Hobby-wise, there are still a few champions building key applications for the last version of ppc - i.e. 10.5. I'd say these uses above are most likely to be the ones interested in modern support from GCC. >From a "hobby effort" point of view (since that's what this is) most >improvements for modern darwin are applicable across the patch, so no loss in >supporting the older ones. TBH our biggest hassle is the amount of time we >spend chasing breakage instead of trying to make improvements ;-). Of course, there's no question that the modern platform has considerably more users now than a few years ago - it would be good to improve the quality of the compiler there too. --- So, FAOD, you're OK with my applying the patch to trunk for gcc-5? thanks Iain
