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: [v3] libstdc++/24071

> > This reverts to the previous, slightly twisted logic in mt_alloc
> > initialization. It should fix the new solaris fails.
> As confirmed privately, this works fine on the 4.0 branch.  I think the long 
> term fix are propositions #3 and #4 of your message in the PR.


> > I anxiously await the next, monthly installment of solaris test results
> > for gcc mainline posted on gcc-testresults, which should verify this claim.
> A bit of irony, right? :-)

Attempted sarcasm due to extreme frustration. Please don't take this
personally: your efforts on behalf of solaris are impressive and
greatly appreciated.

It's annoying to go back and bug-fix patches that seemed fine for two
weeks on all other platforms.

Part of my frustration is the lack of solaris resources that I have
available, which is my own private hell.

However, it's difficult for me to agree that solaris is a primary
development platform when it's so lightly tested with public test
results (last Aug 4 as I see it.). Codesourcery takes HPUX testing
pretty seriously, or HP pays them to, as does IBM with AIX. For
developers without machine resources gcc-testresults is all we have....
daily or at least thrice weekly gcc-testresults should be required IMHO.

Wither Sun? For all their noise, they don't seem to care much about gcc
support on their own OS. Language that details what is a primary
development platform seems to have disappeared from the web
pages. I suppose that is just as good, since the decision was pretty
arbitrary/ nonsensical/weighted towards legacy systems anyway (AIX and
not darwin? Huh?)


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