Re: GCC 4.6.0 Released

[Dennis Clarke <dclarke at blastwave dot org>]

> Dennis Clarke <dclarke@blastwave.org> writes:
>
>>> The only caveat are strange errors with gmake:
>>>
>>> make[3]: write error
>>>
>>> See CR 6938116	GNU make highly unreliable: `write error' message.
>>>
>>> I've hacked around this by ignoring the error in misc.c (close_stdout)
>>> ;-)
>>>
>>
>> It seems odd that gmake would pass every test in its own testsuite and
>> then get an odd little message like that. Oh well, if you feel it can be
>
> It only happens once in a while, and primarily for Solaris 11 NFS
> servers.  Even more rarely, it occurs on Solaris 11 locally.

I generally build my prod things on Solaris 8 with the assumption that the
Solaris ABI stability will provide what I need up to Solaris 9. Then I
rebuild again on Solaris 10 for AMD64/x86_64 functionality. This has
worked well thus far.

I avoid Solaris 11 Express entirely as I just don't see it as a valid
release yet. If the OpenSolaris project was still alive and the bug
process was open then I'd may feel differently but with thing being as
they are ... I avoid Sol 11 for now.

>
>> ignored then I'm so very happy to see this.
>
> I think it is harmless enough to be ignored in this particular case, but
> this deviation from pre-S11 behaviour is bad.  Suddenly expecting every
> single piece of software to handle EINTR all over the place when you
> didn't need to before and don't need it on any other platform isn't
> exactly a winning proposition to me ;-(  I'll try to pursue this with
> Solaris engineering.

 How is that going ? I have filed bugs in the past regarding Studio 11
Update 1 and was not exactly thrilled with the response. However ..
dropping an email to Daryl Gove can generally get things moving.

>> By the way, I just want to say thank you for posting results on Solaris
>> because I review them and use them for comparison all the time. I am
>> still
>> fascinated that GCC can post different results on two servers running
>> the
>> same OS and probably with the same revs of tools avail.
>>
>> Consider this on Sol 8 i386 :
>>
>>                 === gcc Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected passes            72652
>> # of unexpected failures        18
>> # of expected failures          212
>> # of unresolved testcases       1
>> # of unsupported tests          1874
>> /opt/bw/src/GCC/gcc-4.6.0_SunOS5.8_i386.001/gcc/xgcc  version 4.6.0
>> (Blastwave.org Inc. Mon Mar 28 13:18:17 GMT 2011)
>>
>> This : http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg02832.html
>>
>> 		=== gcc Summary ===
>>
>> # of expected passes		74529
>> # of unexpected failures	1
>> # of expected failures		212
>> # of unresolved testcases	1
>> # of unsupported tests		1031
>> /var/gcc/gcc-4.6.0/8-gcc-gas/gcc/xgcc  version 4.6.0 (GCC)
>
> One would have to compare gcc.sum in detail to know what's going on.
>

Well my testsuite run with N=2 finished and the results look like :

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-03/msg03106.html

                === gcc Summary ===

# of expected passes            72652
# of unexpected failures        18
# of expected failures          212
# of unresolved testcases       1
# of unsupported tests          1874
/opt/bw/src/GCC/gcc-4.6.0_SunOS5.8_i386.001/gcc/xgcc  version 4.6.0
(Blastwave.org Inc. Mon Mar 28 13:18:17 GMT 2011)

Exact same as before !

This is a very good sign.

OKay .. so my days of running gmake -k check as a single thread are over.
Thank you very much!

>> I decided to toss caution to the wind and run my build with as and ld in
>> /usr/ccs/bin and I was happy to see a decent result set. I often wonder
>> if
>> we *need* GNU as or just *want* GNU as in an older Solaris release like
>> 8.
>
> IMO you want gas on Solaris/x86 before 10 because as lacks several
> features there (like visibility support).  On Solaris 10/x86 and up, as
> is mostly fine (primarily COMDAT group support is missing, but I'm
> working on that with the assembler and linker engineers as we speak).
> Unfortunately, a recent as patch broke several -gstabs tests, but this
> is expected to be fixed soon.
>
> On Solaris/SPARC I usually do the production builds with as; there seems
> little reason to go for gas instead.
>
> Hope this helps.

Very much so, thank you.

I'll go back and rebuild on x86 with gas and leave my Sparc build as is. I
generally do a double bootstrap merely to see what happens when GCC 4.6.0
is built with GCC 4.6.0 after it has already been bootstrapped. If I see
any significant changes in the testsuite results then I assume something
funky is afoot.


-- 
Dennis Clarke
dclarke@opensolaris.ca  <- Email related to the open source Solaris
dclarke@blastwave.org   <- Email related to open source for Solaris