[gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 962 bytes --]

i dont plan on suggesting any gcc-4.2 version for stable.  arches of course 
are free to determine if gcc-4.2 works better for them than gcc-4.1 and thus 
move to stable.

gcc-4.3 seems to be standing up well.  since the major gcc-ebuild-specific 
issues seem to be resolved now, i'll probably do a sweep of bugs to see if 
there's any patches i'm missing (if you guys know of a bug that should be 
addressed specifically in the gcc-4.3.0 ebuild, speak up now).

then move on to the gcc 4.3 tracker bug (#198121).  once this gets below a 
certain critical mass (i wont know what the critical mass is until it's been 
de-attained), then we'll be ~arching things.  people are recommended to do a 
quick sweep of the lower hangers (many bugs have simple patches).

i'll drop in ~ppc ~amd64 ~x86 as i use those every day.  if any other arch is 
happy now with things, add your ~arch to the commented out list in cvs so i 
know to include it.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Donnie Berkholz]

On 02:57 Thu 10 Apr     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gcc-4.3 seems to be standing up well.  since the major gcc-ebuild-specific 
> issues seem to be resolved now, i'll probably do a sweep of bugs to see if 
> there's any patches i'm missing (if you guys know of a bug that should be 
> addressed specifically in the gcc-4.3.0 ebuild, speak up now).

Presuming you're adding the direction-flag patch to 4.3.0 so it doesn't 
break people on a kernel earlier than 2.6.25? I didn't see it in a quick 
glance at the patch tarball.

Thanks,
Donnie
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 961 bytes --]

On Thursday 10 April 2008, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 02:57 Thu 10 Apr     , Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > gcc-4.3 seems to be standing up well.  since the major
> > gcc-ebuild-specific issues seem to be resolved now, i'll probably do a
> > sweep of bugs to see if there's any patches i'm missing (if you guys know
> > of a bug that should be addressed specifically in the gcc-4.3.0 ebuild,
> > speak up now).
>
> Presuming you're adding the direction-flag patch to 4.3.0 so it doesn't
> break people on a kernel earlier than 2.6.25? I didn't see it in a quick
> glance at the patch tarball.

i had no plans to revert the behavior in question.  i could be persuaded to 
carry such a patch though until 2.6.25 goes stable and gcc-4.3 goes stable.  
presumably the time frame of both of those should be "long enough".  also, 
you'll have to provide a URL to said change.  i havent seen a patch for it in 
my random driftings on the interweb.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Peter Alfredsen]

On Thursday 10 April 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:

> Also, you'll have to provide a URL to said change. i havent seen a
> patch for it in my random driftings on the interweb.
> -mike

I was just researching the issue, so had this handy:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-03/msg00417.html

--
/PA
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 384 bytes --]

Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Presuming you're adding the direction-flag patch to 4.3.0 so it doesn't 
> break people on a kernel earlier than 2.6.25?

gentoo-sources-2.6.24-r4 has that patch, at least when looking at the 
changelog. Or is it just for compile-time borkage and not for the 
direction flag cleaning?

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 506 bytes --]

On Thursday 10 April 2008, Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > Presuming you're adding the direction-flag patch to 4.3.0 so it doesn't
> > break people on a kernel earlier than 2.6.25?
>
> gentoo-sources-2.6.24-r4 has that patch, at least when looking at the
> changelog. Or is it just for compile-time borkage and not for the
> direction flag cleaning?

there is no compile time problem.  it's all runtime.  i still think carrying 
the patch until gcc-4.3 goes stable is OK.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 452 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> there is no compile time problem.  it's all runtime.  i still think carrying 
> the patch until gcc-4.3 goes stable is OK.

1400_prevent-gcc43-optimization-udivdi3.patch fixes compilation issue, 
another patch (already in some 2.6.24.x, I guess) fixes direction flag 
(that well-known runtime bug).

So the point is, our current 2.6.24 kernel is safe.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Duncan]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted
200804100257.12187.vapier@gentoo.org, excerpted below, on  Thu, 10 Apr
2008 02:57:11 -0400:

> then move on to the gcc 4.3 tracker bug (#198121).  once this gets below
> a certain critical mass (i wont know what the critical mass is until
> it's been de-attained), then we'll be ~arching things.  people are
> recommended to do a quick sweep of the lower hangers (many bugs have
> simple patches).

Does this mean I can file bugs without patches whether they aren't yet 
filed already, for still-failing ebuilds?  Last I checked, I had a few 
(3-4 I think, out of 600+ packages on my system, a dozen or so didn't 
compile but most had bugs with patches already, and compiled after 
applying them), but there have been enough updates since then I'll need 
to re-test before I file in any case.

I wasn't filing them since I didn't have patches and 4.3 was still hard-
masked, but I have been keeping a list. =8^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 995 bytes --]

On Thursday 10 April 2008, Duncan wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> posted:
> > then move on to the gcc 4.3 tracker bug (#198121).  once this gets below
> > a certain critical mass (i wont know what the critical mass is until
> > it's been de-attained), then we'll be ~arching things.  people are
> > recommended to do a quick sweep of the lower hangers (many bugs have
> > simple patches).
>
> Does this mean I can file bugs without patches whether they aren't yet
> filed already, for still-failing ebuilds?  Last I checked, I had a few
> (3-4 I think, out of 600+ packages on my system, a dozen or so didn't
> compile but most had bugs with patches already, and compiled after
> applying them), but there have been enough updates since then I'll need
> to re-test before I file in any case.
>
> I wasn't filing them since I didn't have patches and 4.3 was still hard-
> masked, but I have been keeping a list. =8^)

as long as you dont assign them to gcc-porting, that's fine
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1142 bytes --]

On Thursday 10 April 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> gcc-4.3 seems to be standing up well.  since the major gcc-ebuild-specific
> issues seem to be resolved now, i'll probably do a sweep of bugs to see if
> there's any patches i'm missing (if you guys know of a bug that should be
> addressed specifically in the gcc-4.3.0 ebuild, speak up now).
>
> then move on to the gcc 4.3 tracker bug (#198121).  once this gets below a
> certain critical mass (i wont know what the critical mass is until it's
> been de-attained), then we'll be ~arching things.  people are recommended
> to do a quick sweep of the lower hangers (many bugs have simple patches).
>
> i'll drop in ~ppc ~amd64 ~x86 as i use those every day.  if any other arch
> is happy now with things, add your ~arch to the commented out list in cvs
> so i know to include it.

the x86 cld revert is in now as well as some more upstream pr fixes.  i'll 
probably let things settle for this week and pending any craziness, move 
gcc-4.3.0-r1 into ~arch in a week.  i'll prob commit some "obvious" gcc-4.3 
bugs at the same time.

last chance to speak up peeps.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:14:37 -0400
Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> the x86 cld revert is in now as well as some more upstream pr fixes.
> i'll probably let things settle for this week and pending any
> craziness, move gcc-4.3.0-r1 into ~arch in a week.  i'll prob commit
> some "obvious" gcc-4.3 bugs at the same time.
> 
> last chance to speak up peeps.
> -mike

Can I get you bump the glibc req to 2.7-r2 so people don't hit the
multilib bug?  texinfo should be >=4.4 too (if we even use it, not
sure).

I want to get 4.3 running on mips sometime.  We would need
binutils-2.18 minimum once the gnuhash stuff gets removed.

Other than that, let it loose.  I'll try to get some work done on the
remaining tracker bugs sometime soon.


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                               by design, by neglect
mips, treecleaner,                        for a fact or just for effect
wxwidgets @ gentoo     EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Doug Goldstein]

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>   
>> gcc-4.3 seems to be standing up well.  since the major gcc-ebuild-specific
>> issues seem to be resolved now, i'll probably do a sweep of bugs to see if
>> there's any patches i'm missing (if you guys know of a bug that should be
>> addressed specifically in the gcc-4.3.0 ebuild, speak up now).
>>
>> then move on to the gcc 4.3 tracker bug (#198121).  once this gets below a
>> certain critical mass (i wont know what the critical mass is until it's
>> been de-attained), then we'll be ~arching things.  people are recommended
>> to do a quick sweep of the lower hangers (many bugs have simple patches).
>>
>> i'll drop in ~ppc ~amd64 ~x86 as i use those every day.  if any other arch
>> is happy now with things, add your ~arch to the commented out list in cvs
>> so i know to include it.
>>     
>
> the x86 cld revert is in now as well as some more upstream pr fixes.  i'll 
> probably let things settle for this week and pending any craziness, move 
> gcc-4.3.0-r1 into ~arch in a week.  i'll prob commit some "obvious" gcc-4.3 
> bugs at the same time.
>
> last chance to speak up peeps.
> -mike
>   
Poke. Gimme some gcc 4.3 goodness (besides the fact that I'm using it). 
But let's slap ~arch with it.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Vaeth]

> So the point is, our current 2.6.24 kernel is safe.

I can *not* confirm this. Just some days ago, I compiled
hardened-sources-2.6.24 (which uses genpatches-2.6.24-5;
current gentoo-sources uses genpatches-2.6.24-6, but the
difference is obviously not important here [it involves
just an #include for some exotic hardwar]).

Result: Compiles fine with gcc-4.3 on x86 but dies immediately
at boot (before printing anything) unless acpi=off is used.
(And just to be sure, I disabled every acpi feature except
"general" acpi support - same result).

It is certainly a compiler problem, because with gcc-4.2
exactly the same kernel configuration (and even on amd64
with gcc-4.3 and analogous configuration) has no problem.
-- 
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Jan Kundrát]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 408 bytes --]

Vaeth wrote:
> Result: Compiles fine with gcc-4.3 on x86 but dies immediately
> at boot (before printing anything) unless acpi=off is used.
> (And just to be sure, I disabled every acpi feature except
> "general" acpi support - same result).

Please file a bug at bugs,gentoo.org, our hardened team surely wants to 
know about that.

Cheers,
-jkt

-- 
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 252 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gcc-4.2 / gcc-4.3 plans

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

On Friday 11 April 2008, Vaeth wrote:
> > So the point is, our current 2.6.24 kernel is safe.
>
> I can *not* confirm this. Just some days ago, I compiled
> hardened-sources-2.6.24 (which uses genpatches-2.6.24-5;
> current gentoo-sources uses genpatches-2.6.24-6, but the
> difference is obviously not important here [it involves
> just an #include for some exotic hardwar]).
>
> Result: Compiles fine with gcc-4.3 on x86 but dies immediately
> at boot (before printing anything) unless acpi=off is used.
> (And just to be sure, I disabled every acpi feature except
> "general" acpi support - same result).
>
> It is certainly a compiler problem, because with gcc-4.2
> exactly the same kernel configuration (and even on amd64
> with gcc-4.3 and analogous configuration) has no problem.

doesnt sound like a hardened specific problem, nor the string direction 
problem we've been talking about.  the string problem we've been discussing 
affects userspace *only*.  if it fails to reach userspace, your bug is 
clearly not this bug.
-mike

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 827 bytes --]