This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: GCC 4.3 release schedule

> On 10/26/07, Dennis Clarke <> wrote:
>>On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <> wrote:
>> >> Richard Guenther wrote:
>> >> > On 10/26/07, Andrew MacLeod <> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >
>> > ... when we think it's ready.  It doesn't help anyone to declare victory
>> > and release 4.3.0 when it still miscompiles the kernel (not that I know
>> > if it does).  Warm fuzzyness for PMs put aside.
>> At the risk of annoying you Red Hat Linux guys ( and Linux people in
>> general
>> ) you may be surprised to hear that there are problems for UNIX(tm) users
>> out there.  Now I have tried and failed to get a successful bootstrap
>> build
>> of GCC 4.2.2 on Solaris 8 ( Sparc or x86 ) and on Solaris 10. When I look
>> at
>> the Build status page I see no one has posted a result there for GCC 4.2.2
>> :
>>   Please see :
>> I was able to get a decent build with GCC 4.2.1 however :
>>      And see :
>> Exact same machine with exact same environment can not build GCC 4.2.2.
>> Now then, you seem to be discussing GCC 4.3 when GCC 4.2.x still does not
>> build correctly on a highly standards compliant UNIX platform.  Am I
>> reading this correctly ?
> Yes.  This is because the interest in 4.2.x is much lower than in 4.3.0
> right now.

  Everyone wants next years car models in the late fall. I understand that
only too well. I'm a tad more interested in quality results however as
opposed to a shiney new sports car where the brakes don't work.

  I hate car analogies .. but they often work. Sorry.

>> If not .. then please educate me if you can. I would like
>> to at least see GCC 4.2.2 bootstrap out of the box before flailing
>> forwards
>> to GCC 4.3.x.
> Patches welcome.  Certainly there are targets that are less maintained
> (and tested) than the *-linux targets.  But without infinite resources
> we cannot do anything about this.

  I can relate.  I really can.

> Thus, in the case of Solaris - talk to Sun.

I think that the rage inside Sun is Studio 12 and Studio 11 compilers which
are, within reason, vastly superior to GCC.  Then again we do not have the
source code ( yet ) but we do have the sources to OpenSolaris. One would
think that after some two years of the OpenSolaris project we would be able
to build the OS with GCC and some people have tried :

I have not tried that myself.

If one uses the free Studio 12 compiler tools from Sun then you can build
the whole OS ( big chunks at least ) quite neatly.  I have done that so many
times it is just silly :

The Indiana project being headed up by Ian Murdock ( the ian in Debian )
will make big changes in the Solaris landscape and really we need to stop
thinking about Sun corporate and start looking to the extended OpenSolaris
community. Guys like me ( and Blastwave people in general ) are not on the
Sun payroll.  Conversely Red Hat has paid people in the GCC maillists.  I
have my own reasons to pour efforts into GCC and one of them is simply that
*everything* in the OS should be open sourced and *everything* that a person
uses to build it should be open sourced. I think that is the key concept
behind the FSF and the Linux community in general.  It is also why I pour my
heart and guts into to ensure that people have access to open
source software in a classically/traditionally closed off proprietary
operating system.  I think that project Indiana will blow the doors off
those old concepts.

In any case .. I have my reasons to want a nice clean GCC 4.2.2 for
Solaris/OpenSolaris users and my open sourcey intentions are all within

Patches are always welcome indeed.

Dennis Clarke

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]