Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 12:21:22 PDT 2002


Some tidbits from the "Just a thought..." thread

> > Remember that gcc 3.x has a number of improvements over 2.95.x as
> > well, such as better standards compliance
> 
> Yes, although that doesnt gain us anything but failed compiles for
> now...

I hear you speak about failed compiles, slower code and all that. Sure,
it's nice if you say that the GCC team says that it's true, but that is not
good enough for me. I need proof. Show me a package that doesn't compile
properly when compiled with gcc-3.1 (whatever is in CVS now, not gcc-3.0.4)
and convince me that it's gcc's fault, not attributed to bad coding skills
by that package's programmer.

> > Exactly, _some_ cases. What cases are they? I'm not going to read through
> > a year's worth of email archives at GCC. I don't have the time. You come up
> > with some URL's and I'll be more than happy to read them.
>
> why do I need an URL? dont you believe me?

It's not a question about trust. All I was saying, and you will know if
you re-read my posts, that my personal experience are the total opposite of
yours. So either I'm doing something wrong, you are doing something wrong,
we both are doing something wrong, or we both are doing it right but the
compile problems you mention only happen under some very specific
circumstances. Perhaps you're the only one. There may be a handful of other
people but I'm looking at the large picture: the thousands of people who
would potentially upgrade. If 10 people are going to have problmes because
of their setups, then it's fairly isolated and not a big deal for the book
to upgrade and we can attach a note when you don't want to upgrade.

I cannot add to the book "This gcc version may not work for you. We don't
know when it doesn't, just build an entire LFS system and if it doesn't
work, start over again with an older GCC version and try again". I hope you
can see that simply isn't good enough.

People keep saying there are all kinds of things wrong with GCC-3.1. Thus
far I only know that _something_ may be wrong, I still don't know _what_ is
wrong. It's like posting a message to lfs-support saying "Yeah my Glibc
doesn't compile and I get a message like: Error 2". That tells me exactly
the same thing: nothing useful at all, so unless I get more information
I'll have to attribute it to user error unless otherwise proven.

I'm treating this GCC issue in the exact same manner. Unless I see examples
of bad-gcc-3-ism (really, I honestly have no idea what the actual problem
is that people are experiencing with gcc-3). For all I know, people use
gcc-3.0.4, see a problem and now say that gcc-3.1 is going to be bad too.
How is anybody supposed to know if gcc-3.1 is going to be so terrible? It's
not even released yet so nobody can actually know. Whatever is in CVS may
change between now and the release.

Examples guys, I want to see examples of bad gcc-3 behaviour

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list