Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 12:58:24PM +0900, Nobuhiro Iwamatsu wrote: > > We don't have faster hardware. > > We think of a too slow thing in a question > > A test of gcc of sh4 takes time. > When there is not a test, a package is done in about two days. > > How does sh4 become targeted for the release architecture? > Can sh4 disable gcc test? > I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable timescale. Have you tried a SH4A with a dual core? At the moment, I think that this issue is severe enough that it can't be a release architecture. (Note that if it is solved, there may be other problems, but we can get to those later.) Neil -- A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q. Why is top posting bad? gpg key - http://www.halon.org.uk/pubkey.txt ; the.earth.li A40F862E -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110426073922.gc7...@feta.halon.org.uk
Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy
On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable timescale. then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least sh4 has a workable, accessible developer machine, and people within Debian who care about the architecture. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db6d993.3010...@debian.org
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the default compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the build failures exposed by GCC-4.5 are fixed [1]. I didn't see issues on amd64 and i386, armel (although optimized for a different processor) and powerpc (some object files linked into shared libs had to be built as pic). It looks like kfreebsd-* also made the switch and there's been a request to switch for mips and mipsel. Looking through the bug list for src:gcc-4.5, none of the open issues seem to be specific to the remaining release architectures which haven't switched yet - i.e. ia64, s390 and sparc. Are you aware of any issues which would preclude switching the default on those architectures? Has there been any discussion with the port maintainers regarding switching? At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like to avoid switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of GCC 4.5 to reduce maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even before the multiarch changes go into unstable. I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc. GCC 4.6 apparently will be used for the next Fedora and OpenSuse releases, and a test rebuild of Ubuntu natty doesn't look too bad (mostly adding new easily fixable C++ build failures). A test rebuild of the unstable archive is still outstanding, but these build failures will have to be fixed anyway. From my point of view it's important to expose GCC 4.6 early in the release cycle to fix issues like #617628 (which are issues in the packages itself) now. With GCC 4.6 comes one soname change, bumping the libobjc version from 2 to 3, which is not easily detachable from the GCC version change. However this change only affects GNUstep, which can be dealt with NMU's, or migration to a new GNUstep version. It's unlikely that GCC 4.5 will be released with wheezy, as the Debian Ada and D maintainers are already working on GCC 4.6 support. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db6dea5.5010...@debian.org
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote: > I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of > GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and > powerpc. Could you include armhf in the list as well? Thanks Konstantinos -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTimddKkTaiy1fyka6zMOj0o1YzBS=a...@mail.gmail.com
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On 04/26/2011 05:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote: I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc. Could you include armhf in the list as well? yes, forgot about that. with GCC 4.6, armhf is built again from the 4.6 fsf branch, and lets us drop the GCC 4.5 Linaro variant. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db6eb11.2080...@debian.org
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote: > On 26 April 2011 18:03, Matthias Klose wrote: >> I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of >> GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and >> powerpc. > > Could you include armhf in the list as well? I am also getting an ICE with g++ 4.5 on mips too on one of my C++ package: https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=vxl but since there is no log I cannot confirm this is the same ICE as on i386/armel thanks, -- Mathieu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/banlktimr8sshy4vvasvzoxk4gyj1pb9...@mail.gmail.com
Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 16:41:23 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok > >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable > >timescale. > > then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least > sh4 has a workable, accessible developer machine, and people within > Debian who care about the architecture. > It turns out the criteria for adding an architecture and those for removing one aren't exactly the same. Which is good, as it means we're not adding and removing an architecture every couple of weeks depending on a couple porters free time or random hardware issues. Not saying mips and mipsel state is good, just that you should stop the nonsense. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110426163359.gb2...@radis.liafa.jussieu.fr
Re: gcc-4.6 kfreebsd build failure
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6. Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap compiler works around the build failure? As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*, wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6 ? As a side note, the kfreebsd-8 built by gcc-4.6 seems to work (#594288). Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.02.1104261757270.9...@sci.felk.cvut.cz
Re: gcc-4.6 kfreebsd build failure
On 04/26/2011 06:01 PM, Petr Salinger wrote: Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6. Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap compiler works around the build failure? As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*, wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6 ? sure, if it's known to work. would like to avoid a try-and-error upload. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db6f74d.2040...@debian.org
Re: gcc-4.6 kfreebsd build failure
Apparently gcc-4.5 is not good enough as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6. Please could somebody check/confirm that using gcc-4.4 as the bootstrap compiler works around the build failure? As gcc-4.6 is already available on both kfreebsd-*, wouldn't be better to use gcc-4.6 as a bootstrap compiler for gcc-4.6 ? sure, if it's known to work. would like to avoid a try-and-error upload. On my PC, the gcc-4.6_4.6.0-5 gets into xgcc stage without gengtype failure even with current gcc-4.5 as bootstrap. Therefore the bug is not reproducible on my PC. Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lrh.2.02.1104261903380.9...@sci.felk.cvut.cz
Results for 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-11) testsuite on mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu
LAST_UPDATED: Thu Apr 21 05:08:12 UTC 2011 (revision 172810) Target: mipsel-linux-gnu gcc version 4.5.2 (Debian 4.5.2-11) Native configuration is mipsel-unknown-linux-gnu === g++ tests === Running target unix FAIL: g++.dg/abi/packed1.C (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: attribute_plugin.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../libcpp/include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../intl -DIN_GCC -fPIC -shared UNRESOLVED: pragma_plugin.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../libcpp/include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../intl -DIN_GCC -fPIC -shared UNRESOLVED: selfassign.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../libcpp/include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../intl -O -DIN_GCC -fPIC -shared UNRESOLVED: dumb_plugin.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../libcpp/include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../intl -DIN_GCC -fPIC -shared UNRESOLVED: header_plugin.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../libcpp/include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../intl -DIN_GCC -fPIC -shared FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-loops (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer -funroll-all-loops -finline-functions (test for excess errors) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -g (internal compiler error) FAIL: g++.dg/torture/pr42883.C -O3 -g (test for excess errors) === g++ Summary for unix === # of expected passes22397 # of unexpected failures9 # of expected failures 153 # of unresolved testcases 5 # of unsupported tests 203 Running target unix/-fstack-protector FAIL: g++.dg/abi/packed1.C (test for excess errors) UNRESOLVED: attribute_plugin.c compilation, -I. -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/build/gcc/testsuite/g++/../../../gcc -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mipsel-kAl0Gh/gcc-4.5-4.5.2/src/gcc/testsuite/../../include -I/build/buildd-gcc-4.5_4.5.2-11-mip
Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: > >I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok > >it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable > >timescale. > > then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least What is your problem about MIPS? Why do you insist about dropping it? At least be fair and don't spread FUD. GCC on mips/mipsel build in less than 2 days on the recent build machines. It's true that the build time is slightly higher than other architectures, but the testsuite is done on 3 different ABIs. This is something that can be tweaked, as suggested for SH4. Here are the average build time for gcc-4.* since the release of Squeeze [1]: | mips | mipsel | +++ gcc-4.3 | 42864 | 141863 | gcc-4.4 | 104400 | 149148 | gcc-4.5 | 123498 | 114435 | gcc-4.6 | 95725 | 167799 | The build time dispersion is explained by the fact we have buildds of different speed, gcc-* is built by default on them (no_weak_autobuild), unless this build daemon is already busy. > sh4 has a workable, accessible developer machine, mips also has an accessible developer machine, gabrielli.debian.org. It's true that mipsel doesn't have one (it's being working on), that said, most issues are reproducible on both. People can also ask on debian-mips for help in case it's a mipsel specific issue. > and people within > Debian who care about the architecture. MIPS also has Debian people who care about the architecture. See for example my recent MIPS work: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17159&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17161 http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5248&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5262 http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5263&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5267 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623014 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623015 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623162 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623598 http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg3.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg00018.html http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 All that said, I agree that mips and mipsel architectures are not in their best shape, but people are working on that. If you consider they don't follow the release criteria, please give objective arguments. Aurelien [1] select package, avg(build_time) from mips.pkg_history where package like 'gcc-4%' and result='successful' and timestamp > '2011-02-13' group by package; select package, avg(build_time) from mipsel.pkg_history where package like 'gcc-4%' and result='successful' and timestamp > '2011-02-13' group by package; -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > >On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > >>I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the > >>next > >>two weeks before more transitions start. GCC-4.5 is already used as the > >>default > >>compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many > >>surprises > >>on at least the common architectures. About 50% of the build failures > >>exposed > >>by GCC-4.5 are fixed [1]. I didn't see issues on amd64 and i386, armel > >>(although optimized for a different processor) and powerpc (some object > >>files > >>linked into shared libs had to be built as pic). > > > >It looks like kfreebsd-* also made the switch and there's been a request > >to switch for mips and mipsel. > > > >Looking through the bug list for src:gcc-4.5, none of the open issues > >seem to be specific to the remaining release architectures which haven't > >switched yet - i.e. ia64, s390 and sparc. Are you aware of any issues > >which would preclude switching the default on those architectures? Has > >there been any discussion with the port maintainers regarding switching? > > At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like > to avoid switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of > GCC 4.5 to reduce maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even > before the multiarch changes go into unstable. I'll make GCC 4.6 the > default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at > least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc. GCC 4.6 apparently will be If you do the switch, please also add mips and mipsel, that would avoid you to have to complain in two weeks that these architectures have not yet been switched. -- Aurelien Jarno GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 aurel...@aurel32.net http://www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110426185104.gb29...@hall.aurel32.net
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
Matthias Klose dixit: > At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like to avoid > switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of GCC 4.5 to reduce > maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even before the multiarch changes Porters side, too. I’m okay with keeping gcc-4.4 for a while (kernel?) and switching to gcc-4.6 directly for m68k. I know I’ll probably have to invest some work into the latter, but considering the kernel problem is almost solved, chances are good. (I do want to bring out a new base emulator image first, though, but then…) bye, //mirabilos -- 13:47⎜ if i were omnipotent, i would divide by zero all day long ;) (thinking about http://lobacevski.tumblr.com/post/3260866481 by waga) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1104261853560.28...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > > I'll make GCC 4.6 the > > default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at > > least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc. > > If you do the switch, please also add mips and mipsel, that would avoid > you to have to complain in two weeks that these architectures have not > yet been switched. Is there a reason not to switch the remaining (release) arches (ia64, kfreebsd-*, sparc, s390)? Maybe hurd-i386 too? I assume you want to release with at least 4.6 on all arches as the default, so I see no point in waiting with switching if there are no known issues. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110426192857.ga10...@roeckx.be
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
Kurt Roeckx, le Tue 26 Apr 2011 21:28:57 +0200, a écrit : > Is there a reason not to switch the remaining (release) arches > (ia64, kfreebsd-*, sparc, s390)? Maybe hurd-i386 too? There's no real reason to defer hurd-i386, as it's basically like i386, and the key packages (glibc/hurd/gnumach) already use a fixed version and can be handled independently. Samuel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110426204147.gs4...@const.famille.thibault.fr
Re: sh4 architecture into Wheezy
On 04/26/2011 08:36 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 04:41:23PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: On 04/26/2011 09:39 AM, Neil McGovern wrote: I woudn't be particularly happy with that unless the gcc maintainers ok it, and I'm still not sure that two days is also an acceptable timescale. then please drop mips and mipsel as release architectures. At least What is your problem about MIPS? Why do you insist about dropping it? At least be fair and don't spread FUD. GCC on mips/mipsel build in less than 2 days on the recent build machines. It's true that the build time is slightly higher than other architectures, but the testsuite is done on 3 different ABIs. This is something that can be tweaked, as suggested for SH4. Here are the average build time for gcc-4.* since the release of Squeeze [1]: | mips | mipsel | +++ gcc-4.3 | 42864 | 141863 | gcc-4.4 | 104400 | 149148 | gcc-4.5 | 123498 | 114435 | gcc-4.6 | 95725 | 167799 | gcc-4.6: 167799/3600 = 46.61, and this is with the libstdc++ testsuite already disabled, because it did timeout or fail on the mipsel buildds. So this is *no* FUD. Did you look at the build failures, or some other mips porter, before I did disable the tests? The build time dispersion is explained by the fact we have buildds of different speed, gcc-* is built by default on them (no_weak_autobuild), unless this build daemon is already busy. sh4 has a workable, accessible developer machine, mips also has an accessible developer machine, gabrielli.debian.org. It's true that mipsel doesn't have one (it's being working on), that said, most issues are reproducible on both. People can also ask on debian-mips for help in case it's a mipsel specific issue. and people within Debian who care about the architecture. MIPS also has Debian people who care about the architecture. See for example my recent MIPS work: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17159&compare%5B%5D=%2Fdists%2Fsid%2Flinux-2.6%2Fdebian@17161 http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5248&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.6%2Fdebian@5262 http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/gcccvs/?op=comp&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5263&compare%5B%5D=%2Fbranches%2Fsid%2Fgcc-4.5%2Fdebian@5267 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623014 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623015 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623162 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=623598 http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg3.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-mips/2011/04/msg00018.html http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=12606 yes, the last one incomplete and only completed by myself. So who else is doing toolchain work on mips in Debian? Thiemo did leave a big gap, and it was an effort of many people to release squeeze with mips. I just see that All that said, I agree that mips and mipsel architectures are not in their best shape, but people are working on that. If you consider they don't follow the release criteria, please give objective arguments. the build time argument was brought up by the debian-release team, so this this seems to be an objective argument. If not, maybe the release criteria for new, current and "obsolet" ports should be made more transparent. I'm only aware of one table not differentiating new and current ports. yes, other issues are the non-availabilty of a mipsel porter box and the instability of the existing mips porter box. and toolchain maintenance was rather difficult (longsoon, binutils) during the squeeze cycle. Matthias Please note that this thread did start about sh4, and some comments about the sh4 toolchain by some members of the release team, which apply for mips* too, and which are used against the sh4 port. I appreciate your work on mips, but I think a lot more needs to be done to keep it as a release architecture, and that arguments that are overlooked by intent for existing release architectures should not be used against a new port. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db7391c.6040...@debian.org
Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures
On 04/26/2011 09:28 PM, Kurt Roeckx wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 08:51:04PM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote: On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: I'll make GCC 4.6 the default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc. If you do the switch, please also add mips and mipsel, that would avoid you to have to complain in two weeks that these architectures have not yet been switched. Is there a reason not to switch the remaining (release) arches (ia64, kfreebsd-*, sparc, s390)? Maybe hurd-i386 too? I don't know, and I will not invest time to check. If you did check, and if you are confident to fix issues on these architectures, then please tell here. At least for other ports this seems to be possible (s390: Bastian Blank, kfreebsd-*: Aurelian, Petr). I assume you want to release with at least 4.6 on all arches as the default, so I see no point in waiting with switching if there are no known issues. I will not work on toolchain issues specific to these architectures for the wheezy release, so if nobody steps forward, then at least I will not change the default for these architectures. Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4db73b0c.4000...@debian.org
