Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Patrick Dawson]

Daniel Goller wrote:

 > GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86 
profiles anymore.
 > There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
 > If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we 
would like to unamsk it soon.


Thoughts/comments on bug #57602?
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57602

It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4. 
There's a pretty simple fix, but no one from the X11 herd seems to have 
taken an interest yet. I'll update the bug ASAP with some more test 
results. I welcome any input from others who have compiled xorg-x11 on a 
P4 with gcc-3.4.

~ Patrick Dawson



--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Sunday 12 September 2004 07:49 pm, Patrick Dawson wrote:
> It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4.

it's sse2 code, not pentium4
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

added -mno-sse2 conditionally to xorg CFLAGS with gcc 3.4 till this is 
sorted out, since we have pentium4, pentium-m and amd64 users with 
problems and all three of those cpus have sse2



Mike Frysinger wrote:

>On Sunday 12 September 2004 07:49 pm, Patrick Dawson wrote:
>  
>
>>It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4.
>>    
>>
>
>it's sse2 code, not pentium4
>-mike
>
>--
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
>  
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Luke-Jr]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 731 bytes --]

On Monday 13 September 2004 12:33 am, Daniel Goller wrote:
> added -mno-sse2 conditionally to xorg CFLAGS with gcc 3.4 till this is
> sorted out, since we have pentium4, pentium-m and amd64 users with
> problems and all three of those cpus have sse2

xorg working fine w/ amd64 here... reading the comments, it seems that this is 
a nVidia-binary-related bug, not really so much an xorg bug. Perhaps somehow 
make it conditional on usage of such drivers?

>
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >On Sunday 12 September 2004 07:49 pm, Patrick Dawson wrote:
> >>It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4.
> >
> >it's sse2 code, not pentium4
> >-mike
-- 
Luke-Jr
Developer, Utopios
http://utopios.org/

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

i admit i dont know how to check for those, if i would it was a none 
issue, from what i read i agree that it is binary driver issue, i talked 
with seemant about it, but don't want to work on his ebuild more than 
adding the line spanky suggested from 56702
this will keep things sane till he comes up with a permanent fix

or more likely till nvidia comes out with newer drivers , everyone jumps 
on those and problem goes magically away

binaries are always fun



Luke-Jr wrote:

>On Monday 13 September 2004 12:33 am, Daniel Goller wrote:
>  
>
>>added -mno-sse2 conditionally to xorg CFLAGS with gcc 3.4 till this is
>>sorted out, since we have pentium4, pentium-m and amd64 users with
>>problems and all three of those cpus have sse2
>>    
>>
>
>xorg working fine w/ amd64 here... reading the comments, it seems that this is 
>a nVidia-binary-related bug, not really so much an xorg bug. Perhaps somehow 
>make it conditional on usage of such drivers?
>
>  
>
>>Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Sunday 12 September 2004 07:49 pm, Patrick Dawson wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>it's sse2 code, not pentium4
>>>-mike
>>>      
>>>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Seemant Kulleen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 893 bytes --]

On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 21:30, Daniel Goller wrote:
> i admit i dont know how to check for those, if i would it was a none 
> issue, from what i read i agree that it is binary driver issue, i talked 
> with seemant about it, but don't want to work on his ebuild more than 
> adding the line spanky suggested from 56702
> this will keep things sane till he comes up with a permanent fix
> 
> or more likely till nvidia comes out with newer drivers , everyone jumps 
> on those and problem goes magically away
> 
> binaries are always fun
I'm planning on giving NVidia a call tomorrowish to get a feel for when
we can expect new binary drivers that are friendlier for sse2 + gcc-3.4
-- 
Seemant Kulleen
http://dev.gentoo.org/~seemant

Public Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x3458780E
Key fingerprint = 23A9 7CB5 9BBB 4F8D 549B 6593 EDA2 65D8 3458 780E


[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1081 bytes --]

On Monday 13 September 2004 05:51, Luke-Jr wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2004 12:33 am, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > added -mno-sse2 conditionally to xorg CFLAGS with gcc 3.4 till this is
> > sorted out, since we have pentium4, pentium-m and amd64 users with
> > problems and all three of those cpus have sse2
>
> xorg working fine w/ amd64 here... reading the comments, it seems that this
> is a nVidia-binary-related bug, not really so much an xorg bug. Perhaps
> somehow make it conditional on usage of such drivers?

On my amd64 system (in i386 mode) I have a problem where I also have 
reproduceable bugs that cause instant crashes for xorg-x11. A popular cause 
is opening certain webpages in galeon (gtk based) while in konqueror it is 
not a problem. I strongly suspect that something font-related is the cause. 
Possibly in connection with sse2 and gcc-3.4.1. I'm trying to compile without 
sse2 support now, and report whether that stops the bugs.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 13 September 2004 03:20 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> A popular cause
> is opening certain webpages in galeon (gtk based) while in konqueror it is
> not a problem.

yeah i use pan to test it ... just open it up and click on some group names

also found clicking e-mails in kmail triggers it too
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 602 bytes --]

On Tuesday 14 September 2004 00:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2004 03:20 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > A popular cause
> > is opening certain webpages in galeon (gtk based) while in konqueror
> > it is not a problem.
>
> yeah i use pan to test it ... just open it up and click on some group
> names
>
> also found clicking e-mails in kmail triggers it too
> -mike

Sometimes indeed. It's on an ati card (with the xorg drivers) so no closed 
source involved.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

On Tuesday 14 September 2004 00:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2004 03:20 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > A popular cause
> > is opening certain webpages in galeon (gtk based) while in konqueror
> > it is not a problem.
>
> yeah i use pan to test it ... just open it up and click on some group
> names
>
> also found clicking e-mails in kmail triggers it too
> -mike

It seems that adding -fno-sse2 to the compile flags fixed it. This would 
imply that it is definately a compiler bug.

Paul 

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wednesday 15 September 2004 04:21 am, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> It seems that adding -fno-sse2 to the compile flags fixed it. This would
> imply that it is definately a compiler bug.

we knew that already :)
it's been added to the xorg ebuild already as a workaround
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-09-15 at 04:21, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Tuesday 14 September 2004 00:00, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 13 September 2004 03:20 pm, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> > > A popular cause
> > > is opening certain webpages in galeon (gtk based) while in konqueror
> > > it is not a problem.
> >
> > yeah i use pan to test it ... just open it up and click on some group
> > names
> >
> > also found clicking e-mails in kmail triggers it too
> > -mike
> 
> It seems that adding -fno-sse2 to the compile flags fixed it. 


> This would 
> imply that it is definately a compiler bug.

correct. 

From the reports we are getting in/about 3.4.x and SSE2 and or
fundamental CXX bugs the chances are looking pretty slim to none that
3.4.x will be targeted for the next release cycle for many/most arches.
With development being stopped on the 3.4.x series and the 3.5 being
sorta a mess I can't see us leaving the existing toolchain setup for a
while expect maybe for a push of binutils-2.15 to stable on a few
arches.

> 
> Paul 
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Robert Moss]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1448 bytes --]

> correct. 
> 
> From the reports we are getting in/about 3.4.x and SSE2 and or
> fundamental CXX bugs the chances are looking pretty slim to none that
> 3.4.x will be targeted for the next release cycle for many/most arches.
> With development being stopped on the 3.4.x series and the 3.5 being
> sorta a mess I can't see us leaving the existing toolchain setup for a
> while expect maybe for a push of binutils-2.15 to stable on a few
> arches.

As far as I can tell, the SSE2 bugs have only hit 3.4.2, which is now 
masked. 3.4.1 appears to be fine, and indeed less broken for SSE2 than 
3.3.x. The CXX bugs will only come out of the woodwork with testing, so 
some testing (~x86) would be nice.

3.5 is now 4.0, and as far as I know I'm the only person doing serious 
testing (testsuites included). From what I've seen so far, it's fairly 
rock-solid for where it is at the moment (early stage3), certainly more 
so than 3.4 was; there are still internal compiler errors on important 
stuff like glibc but these invariably get fixed in the last week-long 
"big push" where they desperately call for testers in a mad rush to get 
the thing released! That said, there's no way gcc-4 will be in ~x86 for 
2004.3, almost no way (unless it surprises me) it'll be in ~x86 for 
2004.0, but may be in most ~arches for 2004.1, assuming the slightly 
stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many nasty bugs and assuming 
we can iron out all the ICEs.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 264 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

2004.0/2004.1? time warp? 2005.0/.1?

assuming the slightly stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many 
nasty bugs and assuming we can iron out all the ICEs.

^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you 
forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that 
guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing 
portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that?
so much easier to complain about things than help fix them


>
> 3.5 is now 4.0, and as far as I know I'm the only person doing serious 
> testing (testsuites included). From what I've seen so far, it's fairly 
> rock-solid for where it is at the moment (early stage3), certainly 
> more so than 3.4 was; there are still internal compiler errors on 
> important stuff like glibc but these invariably get fixed in the last 
> week-long "big push" where they desperately call for testers in a mad 
> rush to get the thing released! That said, there's no way gcc-4 will 
> be in ~x86 for 2004.3, almost no way (unless it surprises me) it'll be 
> in ~x86 for 2004.0, but may be in most ~arches for 2004.1, assuming 
> the slightly stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many nasty bugs 
> and assuming we can iron out all the ICEs.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Robert Moss]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 636 bytes --]

> 2004.0/2004.1? time warp? 2005.0/.1?

Heh, whoops, stupid Rob. 2005.0.

> ^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you 
> forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that 
> guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing 
> portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that?
> so much easier to complain about things than help fix them

True. But if it happens, and gcc-4.0 is in 2005.0, and all sorts of 
stuff breaks because the devs ignored our pleas to test, then they can't 
say we didn't warn them. Just like, well, what's happening with 3.4 and 
~x86...

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 264 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 08:02, Daniel Goller wrote:
> ^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you 
> forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that 
> guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing 
> portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that?

C'mon, we run Gentoo. Just tell people it optimizes their code better
and everything will run faster. They'll swarm to it.
-- 
Donnie Berkholz
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 796 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 23:20, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 08:02, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > ^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you 
> > forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that 
> > guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing 
> > portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that?
> 
> C'mon, we run Gentoo. Just tell people it optimizes their code better
> and everything will run faster. They'll swarm to it.

Just in case anybody missed this one. (Linux C and C++ Compilers)
http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers
Gentoo linux was used for his testing.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Stuart Herbert]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 805 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 September 2004 04:27, Ned Ludd wrote:
> Just in case anybody missed this one. (Linux C and C++ Compilers)
> http://www.coyotegulch.com/reviews/linux_compilers
> Gentoo linux was used for his testing.

The author of that article also reported a binary incompatibility between 
Gentoo's GCC and Intel's icc compiler suites ... he reports that the problem 
doesn't exist with "stock" GCC.

Best regards,
Stu
-- 
Stuart Herbert                                              stuart@gentoo.org
Gentoo Developer                                       http://www.gentoo.org/
                                                   http://stu.gnqs.org/diary/

GnuPG key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319  C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

On Sunday 19 September 2004 05:20, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On Sat, 2004-09-18 at 08:02, Daniel Goller wrote:
> > ^^ yeah sure like we will have more devs help test a new toolchain, you
> > forget it doesnt come with translucency and shadows, something that
> > guarantees you plenty of (dev) testers, what's gcc, just some thing
> > portage calls to build stuff, who would care about that?
>
> C'mon, we run Gentoo. Just tell people it optimizes their code better
> and everything will run faster. They'll swarm to it.

Besides, while the new xorg offers all that eyecandy, it also means that x is 
a lot slower than it needs to be so it is not actually practical to use it on 
day to day basis. (Luckilly the slowness can be stopped very fast with 
killall xcompmgr ;-)

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Travis Tilley]

Robert Moss wrote:
> As far as I can tell, the SSE2 bugs have only hit 3.4.2, which is now 
> masked. 3.4.1 appears to be fine, and indeed less broken for SSE2 than 
> 3.3.x. The CXX bugs will only come out of the woodwork with testing, so 
> some testing (~x86) would be nice.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

most of the sse2 bugs have been there since 3.4.0 and the release 
manager even commented on them not being fixed (after once again 
targeting them for the next release). Scott Ladd is going to be working 
on them, so hopefully we'll see some fixes: 
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-09/msg00936.html

The CXX bugs you're referring to only happen for nptl users, who have a 
broken pthread.h which isnt parsable by g++ in any way. this is fixed in 
the latest glibc snapshot, but that snapshot has a ton of issues of it's 
own... like -requiring- 2.6 kernel headers, semi-broken libresolv, etc. 
I'll break out a patch and apply it to older snapshots, but the result 
of that snapshot was so discouraging I havent really wanted to touch glibc.


> 3.5 is now 4.0, and as far as I know I'm the only person doing serious 
> testing (testsuites included). From what I've seen so far, it's fairly 
> rock-solid for where it is at the moment (early stage3), certainly more 
> so than 3.4 was; there are still internal compiler errors on important 
> stuff like glibc but these invariably get fixed in the last week-long 
> "big push" where they desperately call for testers in a mad rush to get 
> the thing released! That said, there's no way gcc-4 will be in ~x86 for 
> 2004.3, almost no way (unless it surprises me) it'll be in ~x86 for 
> 2004.0, but may be in most ~arches for 2004.1, assuming the slightly 
> stronger code strictness doesn't cause to many nasty bugs and assuming 
> we can iron out all the ICEs.

O_O
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2004-09/msg00771.html
look at those testsuite results for amd64 for today...

though, at the rate things are going, we might have 4.0 stable before 3.4.


Travis Tilley <lv@gentoo.org>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Joshua J. Berry]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 692 bytes --]

On Sunday 12 September 2004 16:49, Patrick Dawson wrote:
...
> Thoughts/comments on bug #57602?
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=57602
>
> It seems to affect many/most using xorg-x11 with -march=pentium4.
> There's a pretty simple fix, but no one from the X11 herd seems to have
> taken an interest yet. I'll update the bug ASAP with some more test
> results. I welcome any input from others who have compiled xorg-x11 on a
> P4 with gcc-3.4.

Does anyone know if gcc 3.4.2 fixes these problems?  I see there's a new 
ebuild for it in portage...

-- 
Joshua J. Berry
Gentoo Linux -- GLSA Coordinator, Security Team
http://security.gentoo.org -- condordes@gentoo.org

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 190 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 13 September 2004 03:54 pm, Joshua J. Berry wrote:
> Does anyone know if gcc 3.4.2 fixes these problems?  I see there's a new
> ebuild for it in portage...

ive only tested with 3.4.1 but since i already have 3.4.2 on my system i'll 
try rebuilding it now
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Monday 13 September 2004 06:02 pm, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 13 September 2004 03:54 pm, Joshua J. Berry wrote:
> > Does anyone know if gcc 3.4.2 fixes these problems?  I see there's a new
> > ebuild for it in portage...
>
> ive only tested with 3.4.1 but since i already have 3.4.2 on my system i'll
> try rebuilding it now

3.4.2 makes no difference
-mike

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86 
profiles anymore.
There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we 
would like to unamsk it soon.


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Ioannis Aslanidis]

Will there be any consequences for people that is already using gcc 3.4?


On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:43:57 -0500, Daniel Goller <morfic@gentoo.org> wrote:
> GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
> profiles anymore.
> There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
> If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we
> would like to unamsk it soon.
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 



-- 
Ioannis Aslanidis
<deathwing00[at]forums.gentoo.org> 0xC2539DA3
<aioannis[at]tinet.org> 0xF202D067
<dwcommander[at]users.sourceforge.net>

Hellenic Gentoo GNU/Linux project manager (http://hellenicgentoo.sf.net)
FIRECOPS++ project manager (http://firecops.sf.net)

Computer Engineering student at Universitat Rovira i Virgili

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

your impact would be to no longer need a special profile
if it works now, it will work then



Ioannis Aslanidis wrote:

>Will there be any consequences for people that is already using gcc 3.4?
>
>
>On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 13:43:57 -0500, Daniel Goller <morfic@gentoo.org> wrote:
>  
>
>>GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
>>profiles anymore.
>>There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
>>If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we
>>would like to unamsk it soon.
>>
>>--
>>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>  
>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1074 bytes --]

On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 14:43, Daniel Goller wrote:
> GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86 
> profiles anymore.
> There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
> If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we 
> would like to unamsk it soon.

Ideally I'd like to see us get all arches that can use gcc-3.4 on it and
in stable for the next release cycle. So this ~x86 unmask in profiles 
has my blessing. Works best when used in tandem with >=binutils-2.15
(feature wise)

Users that experience failures of gcc/binutils/libc compiling itself
should send any bugs toolchain@g.o
Usually this is only limited the users with buggy athlon{,-xp} hardware
that ever seem to have problems.

Programs that fail to compile with 3.4.x that previously compiled with
3.3.4 should be routed to gcc-porting@g.o and package maintainers
respectively.

> 
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Daniel Goller]

and blessed be my work

Ned Ludd wrote:

>On Sat, 2004-09-11 at 14:43, Daniel Goller wrote:
>  
>
>>GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86 
>>profiles anymore.
>>There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
>>If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we 
>>would like to unamsk it soon.
>>    
>>
>
>Ideally I'd like to see us get all arches that can use gcc-3.4 on it and
>in stable for the next release cycle. So this ~x86 unmask in profiles 
>has my blessing. Works best when used in tandem with >=binutils-2.15
>(feature wise)
>
>Users that experience failures of gcc/binutils/libc compiling itself
>should send any bugs toolchain@g.o
>Usually this is only limited the users with buggy athlon{,-xp} hardware
>that ever seem to have problems.
>
>Programs that fail to compile with 3.4.x that previously compiled with
>3.3.4 should be routed to gcc-porting@g.o and package maintainers
>respectively.
>
>  
>
>>--
>>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>>    
>>

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Alberto Garcia Hierro]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 492 bytes --]

El Sábado, 11 de Septiembre de 2004 20:43, Daniel Goller escribió:
> GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
> profiles anymore.
> There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
> If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we
> would like to unamsk it soon.

 IMHO, GCC 3.4 shouldn't go ~x86 until openoffice.org can be built with it. 
Just my 2 cents.

Regards,
 Alberto

-- 
/* Alberto García Hierro (Skyhusker) */

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Robert Moss]

If you're bothered, check out OpenOffice 1.9.52. That builds fine. Don't 
forget, every GCC 3.x for new x hasn't compiled OpenOffice when it went 
to ~x86. 3.3 hit and 3.2 was needed. 3.2 hit and it didn't compile at 
all. 3.1 was pre-OOo I think. We're not doing anything out of the ordinary.

However, I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps a 1.9.52 OOo ebuild, 
package.mask'd and -* keyworded, should perhaps be committed for testing 
purposes. Any objections? If not, I'll make the tarball and ebuild - it 
works here but my ebuild is filthy. Also when 2.0 is released the 64-bit 
fixes will be merged too.

Alberto Garcia Hierro wrote:
> El Sábado, 11 de Septiembre de 2004 20:43, Daniel Goller escribió:
> 
>>GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
>>profiles anymore.
>>There are no critical packages that dont compile with it.
>>If anyone sees a reason to not unmask it, let me know, otherwise we
>>would like to unamsk it soon.
> 
> 
>  IMHO, GCC 3.4 shouldn't go ~x86 until openoffice.org can be built with it. 
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Regards,
>  Alberto
> 


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 936 bytes --]

On Sunday 12 September 2004 02:24, Robert Moss wrote:
> If you're bothered, check out OpenOffice 1.9.52. That builds fine. Don't
> forget, every GCC 3.x for new x hasn't compiled OpenOffice when it went
> to ~x86. 3.3 hit and 3.2 was needed. 3.2 hit and it didn't compile at
> all. 3.1 was pre-OOo I think. We're not doing anything out of the ordinary.
>
> However, I'd be inclined to suggest that perhaps a 1.9.52 OOo ebuild,
> package.mask'd and -* keyworded, should perhaps be committed for testing
> purposes. Any objections? If not, I'll make the tarball and ebuild - it
> works here but my ebuild is filthy. Also when 2.0 is released the 64-bit
> fixes will be merged too.

If you could post them on bugzilla (not the tarball of course, but a link) 
that would be nice. Assign them to openoffice@gentoo.org

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

Alberto Garcia Hierro wrote:
> El Sábado, 11 de Septiembre de 2004 20:43, Daniel Goller escribió:
> > GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
> > profiles anymore.
>
>  IMHO, GCC 3.4 shouldn't go ~x86 until openoffice.org can be built with it.

And sun-j2sdk... 

Regards,
Norberto

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Stefan Jones]

Arse, I will see if I can get round to fixing it. With luck it might not
be too bad!

Stefan

On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 08:25, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> Alberto Garcia Hierro wrote:
> > El Sábado, 11 de Septiembre de 2004 20:43, Daniel Goller escribió:
> > > GCC 3.4 should be ready to go ~x86 w/o being profile masked in x86
> > > profiles anymore.
> >
> >  IMHO, GCC 3.4 shouldn't go ~x86 until openoffice.org can be built with it.
> 
> And sun-j2sdk... 
> 
> Regards,
> Norberto
> 
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list


--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.4 and ~x86

[Norberto Bensa]

Stefan Jones wrote:
> Arse, I will see if I can get round to fixing it. With luck it might not
> be too bad!

Thanks Stefan.

> On Sun, 2004-09-12 at 08:25, Norberto Bensa wrote:
> > Alberto Garcia Hierro wrote:
> > >  IMHO, GCC 3.4 shouldn't go ~x86 until openoffice.org can be built with
> > > it.
> >
> > And sun-j2sdk...

I really should try to compile it again now with gcc 3.4.2... I'll leave the 
box doing that while I sleep.

Regards,
Norberto

--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list