Re: Is the gcc-3_3-branch creation still on target?

["H. J. Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Fri, Oct 04, 2002 at 08:09:15AM -0700, David O'Brien wrote:
> Are things still on schedule to branch mainline, creating the
> gcc-3_3-branch, on 15-Oct-2002?
> 
> FreeBSD 5.0 will use some form of GCC 3.3 snapshot.  I know this isn't
> desired by the GCC Steering Committee to have another "gcc 2.96", but
> FreeBSD has little choice.  It ICE's on many popular packages, X11 as
> just one example.  It has serious optimization bugs for modern x86
> processors, for which the PR's aren't getting fixed.  It has regressions
> from 2.95 that aren't getting fixed.  All in all, GCC 3.2 is poo.  There
> needs to be a balance between adding new features, re-abstracting the
> code, etc; and basic usability.  So far the 3.x series has leaned too far
> to the former.  GCC 3.1.1 was the most stable of any of the 3.x
> compilers, but it has a broken C++ ABI and is EOL'ed by the GCC
> developers, which makes it a poor choice to base an OS on.
> 

I am not saying 3.2.1 is great. I am still using gcc 2.96. I am just
curious. Isn't the only difference between 3.1 and 3.2 is the C++ ABI
change? How come 3.1.1 is more stable than 3.2.1?

BTW, I applaud FreeBSD's decision to use gcc 3.x in FreeBSD 5.0. That
is what is needed to make gcc 3.x as great as it can be. Without RedHat
8.0 and FreeBSD 5.0 which try to use gcc 3.x to compile everything,
many very bad bugs won't be discovered in time.

FWIW, RedHat has a bunch of patches for their gcc 3.2 in RedHat 8.0. I
guess they make a difference.


H.J.