Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> That's the thing. gcc30 port, essentially, installs a copy of the
> compiler already available as part of the base. But the base is missing
> gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
Compilers from ports suck.
If you set DESTDIR, i
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
> > time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
> > need to let warnings "hang out", and in an ideal world I see an need
> > for (new) wa
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
>> http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
>>
>> for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a
>> release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd,
> No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils
> 2.9.1.
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
>>
>> > libbfd and libiberty do not have version numbers, are not
>> > maintained (i.e. there is no official releases). every p
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> Yes it comes as part of binutils.
Ok.
> No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that
> there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
Well, the following URL
http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
for example, seems to imply,
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> > Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want
>> > to turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with
>> > this. There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> - is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
> code goes? Or is that what you mean by "bad optimised code" ?
We shall see.
> - The gcc 2.95 compiler is quite a bit slower (it appears) on Alpha than
> on
>
> All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in or
> /etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
> changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
> impose restrictions on the activities of other committers.
>
> It's really not a big deal, IMO
David O'Brien wrote:
> 3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
> generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
> [native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
> all 64 bit or RISC GCC code generation is slow -- we w
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
> gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
> same libbfd for my own development and for porting of other compilers
> and to
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want to
> > turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with this.
> > There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes to compile on a fast
> > 1.2
> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
> > consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
> > exercise? For instance the one "make release" will exercise? The
> > WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks "make rel
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:35:41AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > - is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
> > code goes? Or is that what you mean by "bad optimised code" ?
>
> We shall see.
OK. 8-)
>
--mYCpIKhGyMATD0i+
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:58:53AM +0200, John Hay wrote:
> >=20
> > All David has to do is set WARNS=3D0 or NO_WERROR=3D1 in or
> > /etc/defaults/make.conf temp
David O'Brien wrote:
> 3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
> generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
> [native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
> all 64 bit or RISC GCC code generation is slow -- we w
David O'Brien writes:
Thank you, David, for taking the time to answer the questions. Your
answers were clear. I appreciate you taking the time to provide these
answers.
/Joe
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:39:36PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > 3.1 will also be slower on the Alpha. It is really an issue of the code
> > generator. Generating x86 code on an Alpha is faster than generating
> > [native] Alpha code. The Alpha code generator is slow. It may be that
> > all 64
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:35:41AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> > - is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
> > code goes? Or is that what you mean by "bad optimised code" ?
>
> We shall see.
OK. 8-)
>
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 07:29:57PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote:
> - is GCC3 also better on Alpha as far as correctness of the generated
> code goes? Or is that what you mean by "bad optimised code" ?
We shall see.
> - The gcc 2.95 compiler is quite a bit slower (it appears) on Alpha than
> on
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 10:11:33AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
> > gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
> > same libbf
On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 12:39:35AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> I believe, what I see. And that is, FreeBSD includes both -- gdb and
> gcc, but only one libbfd, thankfully. And I want to be able to use that
> same libbfd for my own development and for porting of other compilers
> and to
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
>> http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
>>
>> for example, seems to imply, that there was, in fact, at some point a
>> release 2.9.1 of bfd... It does not quite match the bfd,
> No, that document describes the BFD that was included with Binutils
> 2.9.1.
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:38:02PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> > Yes it comes as part of binutils.
>
> Ok.
>
> > No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that
> > there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
>
> Well, the followi
David O'Brien wrote:
> Why is binutils a nightmare??
Bad engineering?
8-)
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: I am starting to think all WARNS cleanup patches should be posted to
: audit and have an "Approved by: audit" or any of our accepted very
: knowledgeable C standards people.
I think this is a good idea since
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > And the base system does not NEED a java compiler.
>
> Alright. But a FreeBSD installation -- might.
This bears on the fundamental problem of using the install
tools that come with external source code in order to do
installs.
Probably, it should be built by a make wo
David O'Brien wrote:
> > But the base is missing
> > gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
>
> And the base system does not NEED a java compiler.
Or perl.
8-)
-- Terry
To Unsubscr
Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> That's the thing. gcc30 port, essentially, installs a copy of the
> compiler already available as part of the base. But the base is missing
> gcj (the port does too for now), so one would be forced to add the port.
Compilers from ports suck.
If you set DESTDIR, i
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> Yes it comes as part of binutils.
Ok.
> No we should not go down this path. You've already been told that
> there is no official libiberty or bfd release.
Well, the following URL
http://www.gnu.org/manual/bfd-2.9.1/
for example, seems to imply,
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:53:42PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> >> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
> >>
> >> > libbfd and libiberty do not have version numbers,
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
>>
>> > libbfd and libiberty do not have version numbers, are not
>> > maintained (i.e. there is no official releases). every p
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 03:46:22PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
>
> > libbfd anf libiberty do not have version numbers, are not maintained
> > (i.e. there is no official releases). every project includes its own
> > libiberty and imho a
> "David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well... it would be nice if people would do CORRECT fixes. From
> > some things DES was saying, people are making some really stupid "fixes"
> > just to quite warnings. Esp. WRT const.
>
> Yes, the YP code is full of strdup()s that have no purpo
"David O'Brien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well... it would be nice if people would do CORRECT fixes. From
> some things DES was saying, people are making some really stupid "fixes"
> just to quite warnings. Esp. WRT const.
Yes, the YP code is full of strdup()s that have no purpose other tha
On 7 Feb, Max Khon wrote:
> dynamically linked libiberty would be a nightmare.
> libbfd anf libiberty do not have version numbers, are not maintained
> (i.e. there is no official releases). every project includes its own
> libiberty and imho an attempt to find least common denominator w
hi, there!
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 02:52:40PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> But alright, let's say -- ports. gcj and gcjh themselves are
> installed by the several lang/gcc* ports, but they are not functional
> (libgcj/libjava are not ported). As a ports committer I might try to
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> > Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want
>> > to turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with
>> > this. There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 01:05:16PM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> > Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want to
> > turn on all the support libs, etc.. that would be needed with this.
> > There is a reason the gcc30 port takes 25 minutes to compile on a fast
> > 1.2
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> > IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
> > time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
> > need to let warnings "hang out", and in an ideal world I see an need
> > for (new) wa
On 6 Feb, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:19:19AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
>> BTW, how about, may be, if the stars are right, bringing in the Java
>> support too? gcj is now one of the compilers, that come with the GCC
>> package...
> Uh, NO! It is not needed by the ba
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:19:19AM -0500, Mikhail Teterin wrote:
> BTW, how about, may be, if the stars are right, bringing in the Java
> support too? gcj is now one of the compilers, that come with the GCC
> package...
Uh, NO! It is not needed by the base system. We really do not want
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 08:21:07AM -0500, Robert Watson wrote:
> Well, I think that's true: no one is saying you can't fix the warnings you
> find by turning up the warning level.
Well... it would be nice if people would do CORRECT fixes. From
some things DES was saying, people are making some r
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 11:12:38AM +, Mark Murray wrote:
> IMO, this is a good reason to not have WARNS contain -Werror at this
> time. NO_WERROR is a good way to fix this (again IMO). I see a great
> need to let warnings "hang out", and in an ideal world I see an need
> for (new) warnings to
On 6 Feb, Mark Murray wrote:
> [...] a project as important as GCC3 [...]
BTW, how about, may be, if the stars are right, bringing in the Java
support too? gcj is now one of the compilers, that come with the GCC
package...
And it is promising -- it can compile Java into byte code or b
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > Nope, what David was _actually_ trying to say is to hold off with WARNS
> > fixes until GCC 3.1 becomes our compiler, because otherwise this is an
> > almost 100% duplicate of efforts, as GCC 3.1 is so WARNS-different from
> >
> John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
> > consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
> > exercise? For instance the one "make release" will exercise? The
> > WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks "make rel
John Hay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me hijack this a little. How many of you WARNS= adding people
> consider different compile/code paths than the one your machine
> exercise? For instance the one "make release" will exercise? The
> WARNS=1 in libexec/Makefile.inc breaks "make release" beca
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> Nope, what David was _actually_ trying to say is to hold off with WARNS
> fixes until GCC 3.1 becomes our compiler, because otherwise this is an
> almost 100% duplicate of efforts, as GCC 3.1 is so WARNS-different from
> GCC 2.95.3. And of course David should add NO_WERROR
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 09:09:10PM -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
> In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> : On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> : > On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> : > >
On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 07:58:53AM +0200, John Hay wrote:
> >
> > All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in or
> > /etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
> > changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
> > impose restrictions on the
>
> All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in or
> /etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
> changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems. There's no need to
> impose restrictions on the activities of other committers.
>
> It's really not a big deal, IMO
At 11:54 PM -0500 2/5/02, Garance A Drosihn wrote:
>At 8:08 PM -0800 2/5/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>>All David has to do is set WARNS=0 or NO_WERROR=1 in or
>>/etc/defaults/make.conf temporarily when he tests and commits the
>>changeover, and he'll sidestep all the problems.
>
>I would assume that
At 8:08 PM -0800 2/5/02, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:12:15PM -0500, Jeroen C.van Gelderen wrote:
>
>> David is about to switch to GCC 3.0 and I guess he does not like moving
>> targets. I would expect that for the GCC 4.0 upgrade a similar freeze
> > request will go out. An
On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 10:12:15PM -0500, Jeroen C.van Gelderen wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2002 at 07:20:46AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2002 at 07:06:54PM -0800, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> >>> If you use the argument that one shouldn't set WARNS because a new
> >>> compiler wil
54 matches
Mail list logo
