Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Thomas Beaudry]

>The GCC Page (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html) says it is
>MultiVendor V3 compatible

ABI = Application Binary Interface.  What vendors of debuggers and
other tools see when they work with the output of GCC.  3.2 is
compatible with version 3 of the spec.

>- does that mean that it's compatible (again) with 2.95?  There
>aren't any other changes listed on the page, so does that also
>mean that no changes in code are required from 3.1 to 3.2 to compile?
>Will this just mean going from 2.95 to 3.2 will be a matter of fixing
>the ISO C/C++ standards, just as for going from 2.95 to 3.0?

Anything that compiled with 3.x will compile without change with
3.2.  As stated, the only changes are to the ABI, what other tools
interface with.

Thus you would need the same changes to 2.95 code as you would for any
of the other 3.x compilers.  My experience has been that bringing the
code into compliance with the ISO standards will fix any problems.


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

RE: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Thomas Beaudry]

>Gentoo patches 3rd party apps for new GCC versions?
>I would have expected the original package author to
>be doing that, not people from a particular distro.

All the distros do it.  Nobody wants to wait for the
maintaner to find the time, they usually have other
work to do to put food on the table.  That's the reason
the updates happen so fast.  Among all the distros,
there's someone who has the time (and quite often is
paid to do so, e.g. Mandrake, Red Hat) to figure out
the fixes right away.  As soon as they have it figured
out, they email it to the maintaner who then usually
checks it out and merges it into the code.


_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com

RE: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Michael Mattsson]

> Most of my patches are actually in the Gentoo source tree. When you
> emerge a package and you see a line that it's patching the 
> source code right after unpacking the source... that's possibly one of

> the gcc-3.1 patches. As far as where I send the patches to... I go to
the 
> maintainer's website and e-mail it to him/her and also explain all my 
> changes. 

Gentoo patches 3rd party apps for new GCC versions?  I would have
expected the original package author to be doing that, not people from a
particular distro. 

> And if you wanna see lots of kernel hacks at patches by us Gentoo 
> people... try mjc-sources

Is gentoo developing the patches in mjc, or just including them?  Most
of the patch authors I recognize from the linux-kernel mailing list - do
many of them work with gentoo?






Michael Mattsson
Kyrana Inc.
michael@kyrana.com

RE: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Matthew Kennedy]

On Mon, 2002-07-29 at 02:14, Michael Mattsson wrote:
> > the gcc-3.1 patches. As far as where I send the patches to... I go to
> the 
> > maintainer's website and e-mail it to him/her and also explain all my 
> > changes. 
> 
> Gentoo patches 3rd party apps for new GCC versions?  I would have
> expected the original package author to be doing that, not people from a
> particular distro. 

Not every upstream author is using the latest tools. There have been
dozens of patches sent upstream for gcc3.x-related things so far alone.

-- 
Matthew Kennedy
Gentoo Linux Developer

[gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Matthew J. Turk]

Recently there's been some (exciting!) talk about moving to GCC 3.1 on the
default around the middle of August...

With the changes between 3.1 and 3.2, particularly (exclusively?) in the C++
ABI, is this going to help the situation?  Or are we currently following the
"major" distros like RedHat and Mandrake to preserve compat across the spectrum
of distributions?

Just curious.  :)


mjt
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Turk <m-turk@nwu.edu>       ICQ: 3856787
"Music is the Best." - FZ         thecatfishman.org
     http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~mjt631/spamoff.htm

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Bart Verwilst]

On Sunday 28 July 2002 07:07, Matthew J. Turk wrote:
|| Recently there's been some (exciting!) talk about moving to GCC 3.1 on the
|| default around the middle of August...
||
|| With the changes between 3.1 and 3.2, particularly (exclusively?) in the
|| C++ ABI, is this going to help the situation?  Or are we currently
|| following the "major" distros like RedHat and Mandrake to preserve compat
|| across the spectrum of distributions?
||
|| Just curious.  :)
Well, we won't be using 3.1 as default, but we'll go to 3.2 straight away..
Because 3.1 and 3.2 are incompatible again (hopefully for the last time..)

||
||
|| mjt
|| ---------------------------------------------------
|| Matthew J. Turk <m-turk@nwu.edu>       ICQ: 3856787
|| "Music is the Best." - FZ         thecatfishman.org
||      http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~mjt631/spamoff.htm
|| _______________________________________________
|| gentoo-dev mailing list
|| gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
|| http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev

-- 
Bart Verwilst
Gentoo Linux Developer, Release Coordinator
Gent, Belgium

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Doug Goldstein]

Bart Verwilst wrote:

>On Sunday 28 July 2002 07:07, Matthew J. Turk wrote:
>|| Recently there's been some (exciting!) talk about moving to GCC 3.1 on the
>|| default around the middle of August...
>||
>|| With the changes between 3.1 and 3.2, particularly (exclusively?) in the
>|| C++ ABI, is this going to help the situation?  Or are we currently
>|| following the "major" distros like RedHat and Mandrake to preserve compat
>|| across the spectrum of distributions?
>||
>|| Just curious.  :)
>Well, we won't be using 3.1 as default, but we'll go to 3.2 straight away..
>Because 3.1 and 3.2 are incompatible again (hopefully for the last time..)
>
>||
>||
>|| mjt
>|| ---------------------------------------------------
>|| Matthew J. Turk <m-turk@nwu.edu>       ICQ: 3856787
>|| "Music is the Best." - FZ         thecatfishman.org
>||      http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~mjt631/spamoff.htm
>|| _______________________________________________
>|| gentoo-dev mailing list
>|| gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
>|| http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>
>  
>
3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with the C++ ABI 
now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping 
straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from 2.95 to 3.1 
and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to 3.2. As one of 
the gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2 Gentoo guys I support this plan (was one of the ones 
calling for it among the devs) and I'm working hard with all the other 
guys to send upstream patches to developers to make sure their 
applications are ready for the new gcc-3.2 platform. (this will benefit 
all distros).

-- 
Doug Goldstein
Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1)
Gentoo Linux                                http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Terje Kvernes]

Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> writes:

  [ ... ]

> 3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with the C++
> ABI now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By
> skipping straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from
> 2.95 to 3.1 and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95
> to 3.2. 

  that sounds like a very good idea.  although it leave people like me
  (with 3.1) in need of a --rebuild-tree.  oh well, I haven't tried
  that before.  ;-)

> As one of the gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2 Gentoo guys I support this plan (was
> one of the ones calling for it among the devs) and I'm working hard
> with all the other guys to send upstream patches to developers to
> make sure their applications are ready for the new gcc-3.2
> platform. (this will benefit all distros).

  great work!  it's great to see people putting in community work and
  not just thinking about their own little sphere.  *applause*

  and again, thanks!

-- 
Terje

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Matthew J. Turk]

> 3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with the C++ ABI 
> now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping 
> straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from 2.95 to 3.1 
> and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to 3.2. 

The GCC Page (http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.2/changes.html) says it is MultiVendor V3
compatible - does that mean that it's compatible (again) with 2.95?  There
aren't any other changes listed on the page, so does that also mean that no
changes in code are required from 3.1 to 3.2 to compile?  Will this just mean
going from 2.95 to 3.2 will be a matter of fixing the ISO C/C++ standards, just
as for going from 2.95 to 3.0?



mjt
---------------------------------------------------
Matthew J. Turk <m-turk@nwu.edu>       ICQ: 3856787
"Music is the Best." - FZ         thecatfishman.org
     http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~mjt631/spamoff.htm

RE: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Michael Mattsson]

Just curious.  Who are you sending patches to?  Gentoo scripters, or
independent QT/GTK developers?  
What kind of patches are you refering to?  Gcc3.2 or kernel patches?
Why arent any patches in the cvs tree?  How many questions can I fit
onto one paragraph?

I'm kind of confused as I thought that pretty much all gentoo related
code were script based.  If this is not the case, then is it possible to
get a list of gentoo specific modules that may be affected by future GCC
upgrades?   I ask this because I tend to use the latest GCC CVS
snapshots for my development (currently gcc 3.1.3).



Michael Mattsson
Kyrana Inc.
michel@kyrana.com



> -----Original Message-----

> 3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with 
> the C++ ABI 
> now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping 
> straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from 
> 2.95 to 3.1 
> and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to 
> 3.2. As one of 
> the gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2 Gentoo guys I support this plan (was one 
> of the ones 
> calling for it among the devs) and I'm working hard with all 
> the other 
> guys to send upstream patches to developers to make sure their 
> applications are ready for the new gcc-3.2 platform. (this 
> will benefit 
> all distros).
> 
> -- 
> Doug Goldstein
> Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1)
> Gentoo Linux                                
> http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
> 

Re: [gentoo-dev] GCC 3.1/3.2

[Doug Goldstein]

Michael Mattsson wrote:

>Just curious.  Who are you sending patches to?  Gentoo scripters, or
>independent QT/GTK developers?  
>What kind of patches are you refering to?  Gcc3.2 or kernel patches?
>Why arent any patches in the cvs tree?  How many questions can I fit
>onto one paragraph?
>
>I'm kind of confused as I thought that pretty much all gentoo related
>code were script based.  If this is not the case, then is it possible to
>get a list of gentoo specific modules that may be affected by future GCC
>upgrades?   I ask this because I tend to use the latest GCC CVS
>snapshots for my development (currently gcc 3.1.3).
>
>
>
>Michael Mattsson
>Kyrana Inc.
>michel@kyrana.com
>
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>3.2 is labeled by GNU to be 100% multi-vender compliant with 
>>the C++ ABI 
>>now. Which is the core prob with the new gcc releases. By skipping 
>>straight to 3.2 we'll avoid 2 problem transitions.. 1 from 
>>2.95 to 3.1 
>>and then from 3.1/3.1.1 to 3.2 instead we'll have 2.95 to 
>>3.2. As one of 
>>the gcc-3.1/gcc-3.2 Gentoo guys I support this plan (was one 
>>of the ones 
>>calling for it among the devs) and I'm working hard with all 
>>the other 
>>guys to send upstream patches to developers to make sure their 
>>applications are ready for the new gcc-3.2 platform. (this 
>>will benefit 
>>all distros).
>>
>>-- 
>>Doug Goldstein
>>Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1)
>>Gentoo Linux                                
>>http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>gentoo-dev mailing list
>gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
>http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>
>
>  
>
Most of my patches are actually in the Gentoo source tree. When you 
emerge a package and you see a line that it's patching the source code 
right after unpacking the source... that's possibly one of the gcc-3.1 
patches. As far as where I send the patches to... I go to the 
maintainer's website and e-mail it to him/her and also explain all my 
changes. My patches aren't to specific Qt/GTK code because 99% of that 
code is fine. It's all C++ syntaxing and what not really. And if you 
wanna see lots of kernel hacks at patches by us Gentoo people... try 
mjc-sources. Make sure to pick your architecture with (3.1) at the end 
if you're using gcc-3.1.

-- 
Doug Goldstein
Developer (Laptops, WiFi, GCC-3.1)
Gentoo Linux                                http://www.gentoo.org/~cardoe/