xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc-2.96-nn status

To: <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gcc-2.96-nn status
From: Adam Cioccarelli <alciocca@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 16:22:44 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>, <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <jfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <3BA83ECB.D022D19D@club-internet.fr>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Just my 2 cents worth,

I've been using gcc 3.0 since it came out and as far as kernel (and most
other things) go I have not had any problems at all..


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Cioccarelli (B.E Mechanical)                Adam.Cioccarelli@xxxxxxxxxx
Database Administrator                           Phone: +43 1 536 89 7725
                                                 Fax:   +43 1 536 89 7719
ecetra Central European e-Finance AG             Mobile:+43 664 181 4195
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 jfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> Seth Mos a écrit :
> >
> > At 21:26 18-9-2001 +0200, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> > >Seth Mos a écrit :
> > >
> > > > At 13:02 18-9-2001 -0400, Arun Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > > > >Hi,
> > > > >     I heard that 2.96 is again a devel version of gcc which is sorta
> > > > > unstable.I
> > > >
> > > > It was a CVS snapshot.
> > > >
> > >
> > >It was a CVS snapshot some 18 months ago.  Eighteen months of bug hunting
> > >later you can tell nothing about its stability.  In fact because Gcc 2.96 
> > >was
> > >frozen
> > >over a year before gcc 3.0  and has been far more dceployed I trust it far 
> > >m
> > >ore than gcc 3.0+
> >
> > True, but I gather 3.0+ will pop up in a lot more distributions then just
> > redhat and mandrake.
> > 3.0 is a official release which means it is not distribution specific. The
> > reason that mandrake adopted is was more or less because a lot of mandrake
> > is still redhat based. (no flame intended)
> >
>
> I don't care which one is official what I care is which one crashes o
> and which one miscompiles less often
> For now gcc 3.0 is unproven and at least gcc 3.0 (don't know about gcc
> 3.0.1)
> has some horrific bugs far worse than those gcc 2.96 had in september
> 2000.
>
>
> Also RedHat and Mandrake have far more users than all the remaining
> distributions
> combined.  Both RedHat ad Mandrake are poised to ship gcc 3 but gcc 2.96
> will be
> the default compiler.
>
>
> Mandrake is no longer a clone of RedHat.  Factors were gcc 2.96 superior
> C++
> respective to gcc 2.95, faster executables (benchmarked) and perhaps
> support of
> Itanium.
>
>
> > The gcc people are working hard on getting 3.0 stable. Most kernel
> > developers I met only work with official compilers. Not with wat shipped
> > with their distro.
> >
>
> Kernel developers only accepted gcc 2.95 much later than it becvame
> official.
> First official label does not confer magically bug free status and
> second because
> kernel is very specific and requires specific testing of the compiler.
>
>
> > > > >heard posting saying that we shud downgrade to 2.95 possibly.I think 
> > > > >with
> > > > >RH 7.1
> > > > >,u no longer need kgcc to compile things correctly.gcc itself works.In
> > > fact,i
> > > >
> > > > For most userland programs it seems to be fine but I have encounterd 
> > > > some
> > > > utilities that don't like it.
> > >
> > >Gcc 2.96 requires C++ functions being declared before their use.   I have
> > >found
> > >many programs who need to be fixed.
> >
> > The same for gcc-3.0
> >
> > > > For kernels kgcc might be a better solution.
> > >
> > >The only gcc tested by kernel people are egcs and gcc 2.95.  There is ever 
> > >a
> > >danger kernel
> > >will break if compiled with a different compiler.  On another hand gcc
> > >2.96 has
> > >been used in
> > >the two most popular Linux distributions so is a good test bench.
> >
> > Expect more reports of 3.0 when that turns up in a new distribution.
> >
> > > > >heard sby commenting that now kgcc seems broke in RH 7.1 and so it is
> > > safe to
> > > > >use only gcc in RH 7.1;while it was mandatory  to use kgcc in RH 
> > > > >7.0!!!!
> > > >
> > > > Not that I know off.
> > >
> > >AFAIK kgscc is no longer shipped with 7.1.
> >
> > [seth@stimpy /data]$ which kgcc
> > /usr/bin/kgcc
> > [seth@stimpy /data]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> > Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf)
> > [seth@stimpy /data]$ rpm -ql compat-egcs|grep kgcc
> > /usr/bin/kgcc
> > [seth@stimpy /data]$
> >
>
>
>
> > >   Reason kgcc was in 7.0 was because
> > >gcc 2.96 did not compile kernel 2.2.  gcc 2.96 had its bugs but in that
> > >case it
> > >was due
> > >to broken code in kernel that old more tolerant compilers accepted but
> > >should not
> > >have.
> > >kernel 2.4 has no longer this problem.
> >
> > It's called compat-egcs for exactly that reason. It is a compatibility
> > package including libs to compile  packages for redhat 6.2 environments.
> >
> >  > -march=i686.   This will be a bit faster than  compiling for i686.   Gcc
> > 2.96
> > >genrates faster code than egcs but if you are wary of it the above is the 
> > >best
> > >solution
> >
> > Comromises build the world
> > --
> > Seth
> > Every program has two purposes one for which
> > it was written and another for which it wasn't
> > I use the last kind.
>
> --
>               Jean Francois Martinez
>
> The Independence project: because Linux should be for everyone
> http://independence.seul.org
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>