This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC 3.2 Prerelease
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>, "B. Kosnik" <bkoz at nabi dot net>
- Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2002 11:20:01 -0700
- Subject: Re: GCC 3.2 Prerelease
--On Tuesday, August 06, 2002 11:05:09 AM -0700 "H. J. Lu" <email@example.com>
On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 06:07:25PM -0700, B. Kosnik wrote:
> Agreed; I don't see how we can release 3.2 unless we can be confident
> that 3.3, when released, will have the same ABI ("fixing" 3.3 before
> its release, to fix the problem, might be acceptable). However, I
> must admit that I am fuzzy about just what the breakage is; what are
> the differences?
There are 155 g++ fails, and 15 libstdc++ fails, when the 3.3
libstdc++.so is used with the 3.2 toolchain.
Jakub gets different results. I'm hoping that a third person will step
forward and try this, and that this person's results will match either
Jakub or mine. I'm willing to be wrong, of course. I'm just uneasy.
Here is mine on Linux/x86 configured with
.../configure --enable-__cxa_atexit --enable-clocale=gnu
--with-system-zlib --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-haifa
1. gcc 3.3 using libstdc++ from gcc 3.2. Additional failures:
+FAIL: backward/strstream_members.cc execution test
+FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, -O1
+FAIL: gcc.c-torture/compile/20001226-1.c, -O3 -fomit-frame-pointer
Here, you are claiming that changing the C++ library broke the C
compiler. Are you sure about that?
Mark Mitchell firstname.lastname@example.org
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com