This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: new fails on gcc 3.4, i686-unknown-openbsd3.1
On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 07:49:29PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2002, Marc Espie <espie@nerim.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2002 at 03:42:51PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> >> On Dec 28, 2002, Andrew Pinski <pinskia@physics.uc.edu> wrote:
> >> > #define __END_DECLS };
> >> > Note the semicolon after }, that is what is causing it.
> >> Looks like a job for fixheaders... They headers are obviously in
> >> error.
> > Not a job for fixheaders. We have control over our headers, and we
> > fix them as needed, when such issues are discovered.
> Even for headers that have already been deployed? :-) GCC might help
> with those, should Joe R. User decide to install GCC on his older
> OpenBSD box that has this header still broken.
Define `older'. We churn out new releases every six months, consistently.
It's a really bad idea to not update an OpenBSD box, especially since a
large proportion of the changes are security fixes, and we almost never
deploy incompatible changes...
There are loads of reasons why you may not want to use a newer gcc on
an older OpenBSD box, especially as there have been fixes all over the
place, including the assembler, the linker, and header files...
I believe that trying to do a correct job in fix-headers for OpenBSD is a
pointless exercise. There are lots of other reasons why a newer gcc won't
do much good on an older OpenBSD box. There's a good reason the OpenBSD
project doesn't maintain more than two releases back, and only for critical
fixes: we don't have the manpower to do so. Instead, we concentrate on
making each new release obviously better than the last.
(by obviously, I mean that there are no incompatible changes or slow-downs
that would make one person question the suitability of the upgrade).
And I don't think there's anybody around there who is actually testing
newer gcc releases on older OpenBSD releases, to ensure the level of
quality we try to achieve with new releases, so really, it's pointless.