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: Which gcc version to test?

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002, Janis Johnson wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 11:25:54AM +0200, Karel Gardas wrote:
> >
> > maybe it is silly question, but I'm preparing some build-pool of our
> > software here ( and so I'd like to know which version
> > of gcc is the most required to test. If it's gcc 3.2.1 pre or if it's gcc
> > 3.3 pre. Now we're working with gcc 2.95.3-4 only...
> >
> > BTW: I'm asking because this testing consumes some resources and probably
> > we'll not have enough for testing both branches...
> If your testing will be done on a regular basis, I recommend using the
> 3.2 branch originally and then switching to the 3.3 branch when it is
> created.  The 3.2 branch is quite stable and so should be easier to use
> for setting up your testing.  GCC 3.2.1 is expected to release fairly
> soon, but bugs you find can be fixed for a GCC 3.2.2 release, if there
> is one and if they are regressions from earlier versions.  Bugs found
> in 3.2.x can be fixed for GCC 3.3 if they exist there as well, even if
> they are not regressions.

ACK. I'll start with 3.2.x at the moment. I'm setuping environment where
I'll be able to do automatic builds using stable recent gcc (at least
weekly, the idea is daily). The whole reson behind this, is that we're
still using 2.95.4 for main development mainly because of its c++
compilation performance, but we'd like to be sure that sources are
compilable with gcc which people are using...

> I see that MICO is written in C++.  The C++ language accepted by GCC 3.x
> is very close to conforming to the ISO C++ standard, which is not the
> case with the 2.95 compiler.  Depending on how MICO is written, you
> might have a lot of work to do updating the code to compile with the
> newer compiler.  The web page lists several native C++ compilers that
> are used for building MICO, so perhaps it's already in good shape.

Our source tree is perfectly compilable with gcc 3.1.x, 3.2.x and even
3.3.x which I had a chance to test. The only one problem which I still
have is that gcc3.1.x/3.2.x produces some warnings which are not generated
while using gcc 2.95.4 and gcc 3.3.x generates even warnings on places
where gcc 3.1.x/3.2.x are ok with the code. I'll post separate email about
this problem.

Thanks for your info,

Karel Gardas        
ObjectSecurity Ltd. 

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