This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]

Analysis of remaining EGCS references


Here's an analysis of the remaining EGCS references in the GCC tree that
could perhaps be removed or fixed to refer to GCC.

Excluded: all references in /CVS/ files, all references in ChangeLogs, all
references in gcc/testsuite, and others that seem to be appropriately
historical.

./gcc/ch/hash.h:/* C code produced by gperf version 2.7.1 (19981006 egcs) */

For this and other gperf-generated files, I doubt regenerating with the
current GNU gperf release is worthwhile, though it's harmless.

./gcc/NEWS:Noteworthy changes in GCC after EGCS 1.1.

Historical in itself, but this is the top of gcc/NEWS, and this items
listed there *aren't* in the GCC 2.95 release notes.  I'll continuing
pointing this out until it's resolved, added to the release criteria or
it's stated that GCC 3.0 should go out like this: the status of the NEWS
files versus the online release notes should be resolved, and duplication
and inconsistencies avoided; the top of gcc/NEWS is just plain confusing.

./gcc/README.gnat:The following patches are needed in order to build GNAT with EGCS.

I've proposed to remove README.gnat as hopelessly bitrotten.

./gcc/cpplib.c:   counts from all the source code I have lying around (egcs and libc

Getting rid of this would require regenerating the statistics with current
source versions.

./gcc/f/BUGS:`egcs/gcc/f/NEWS'.  There, lists of bugs fixed in various versions of

There are many EGCS references in the g77 documentation; I think Toon
Moene was looking at cleaning them up where appropriate.  In general, the
g77 documentation need no longer support generating multiple versions for
FSF and EGCS versions of g77 ; there is a single GCC, which includes g77.

[other g77 EGCS references omitted]

./gcc/makefile.vms:# makefile for egcs
./gcc/makefile.vms:# choose egcs or dec c

I've proposed to remove this as well.  VMS support seems bitrotten, but if
someone wants to make it work again then they can remove the EGCS
references while doing so.

./gcc/config/alpha/openbsd.h:   dwarf unwind information. egcs doesn't try too hard to check internal
./gcc/config/alpha/openbsd.h:   Check alpha/alpha.h, alpha/osf.h for it when egcs is upgraded.  */
./gcc/config/i370/i370.md:;; Basically, using clobber in egcs-1.1.1 will ruin ability to optimize around
./gcc/config/i386/openbsd.h:   dwarf unwind information. egcs doesn't try too hard to check internal
./gcc/config/m68k/openbsd.h:   dwarf unwind information. egcs doesn't try too hard to check internal
./gcc/config/m68k/x-mot3300:# With egcs-1.1.2, this also happens for f/expr.o and f/stb.o
./gcc/config/ns32k/ns32k.h:   2.8 but was not picked up by egcs (at least egcs 1.0). Having all
./gcc/config/sparc/openbsd.h:   dwarf unwind information. egcs doesn't try too hard to check internal

All the references to EGCS in config files should probably be checked for
applicability to current GCC and updated / removed if appropriate.  The
same, of course, applies to references saying "this is broken in 2.5" or
"does gcc 2 still need this", which are a little more difficult to grep
for.

./libio/NEWS:*** Major changes in libio for egcs:
./libstdc++/NEWS:*** Noteworthy changes in libstdc++ for EGCS
./libstdc++/NEWS:* EGCS includes the SGI STL implementation without changes.
./libstdc++/NEWS:* As a result of these and other changes, libstc++ for EGCS is not binary

Will the old libstdc++ still be present at all in GCC 3.0?  If so, these
NEWS files should probably have some note added that it is deprecated, not
having new development done on it and libstdc++-v3 is to be preferred.

./libstdc++-v3/docs/17_intro/BADNAMES:For egcs:

The list as well as the EGCS reference may need updating, if it does
really relate to EGCS.

./libstdc++-v3/docs/install.html:      libstdc++:  gcc-2.95.2 works well, or one of the post-2.95.2 egcs

Should refer to GCC snapshots instead of EGCS snapshots.

./libstdc++-v3/docs/23_containers/wrappers_h.txt: * i.e., the template function inlining really does work; g++/egcs

Assuming the comment is still correct (applies to current g++), EGCS
reference should be removed.

./libstdc++-v3/docs/faq/index.html:         all over the world, in the same way as GCC (EGCS) or Linux.

EGCS reference should be removed.

./texinfo/INSTALL:Note most of this information is out of date and superceded by the EGCS
./texinfo/Makefile.am:# ??? For EGCS, only build the stuff we actually need.  This eliminates the
./texinfo/Makefile.in:# ??? For EGCS, only build the stuff we actually need.  This eliminates the
./texinfo/aclocal.m4:AC_DEFUN(EGCS_PROG_INSTALL,
./texinfo/configure.in:EGCS_PROG_INSTALL

What's the status of texinfo removal?  These will go away with texinfo if
and when it gets removed.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
jsm28@cam.ac.uk


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