Re: Signal 11

Bernhard Rosenkraenzer
2000-12-14T23:29:34Z

On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:

> If you ask any gcc folks, the main reason they think this was a really
> stupid thing to do was exactly that the 2.96 thing is incompatible BOTH
> with the 2.95.x release _and_ the upcoming 3.0 release.

The same thing is true of *any* gcc release.
For example, C++-ABI wise, 2.95.x is incompatible BOTH with egcs 1.1.x
_and_ the upcoming 3.0 release.

> > Like what - gcc 2.5.8 ? The problem is not in general that the snapshot is any
> > buggier than before, but that the bugs are in different places. egcs and gcc295
> > both caused X compile problems too.
>
> gcc-2.95.2 is at least a real release, from a branch that is actively
> maintained

Not very actively.
Please take the time to compare the activity in gcc_2_95_branch with the
patches in the current "2.96" version in rawhide.

> - so a 2.95.3 is likely to happen reasonably soon, fixing as
> many problems as possible _without_ being incompatible like the snapshots
> are.

It will be incompatible with any non-2.95.x-version, and I don't think
2.96-68 is any more buggy than the current 2.95 branch.
The initial 2.96 "release" did have some odd bugs; all the known ones have
been fixed.

> Or just stay at 2.91.66 (egcs).

This may be good for the kernel, but it's not acceptable for C++.
Also, there's no support for some of the platforms we have to work with,
such as ia64 and S/390 - using different compilers for different
architectures isn't a real solution either.

> As to X compile problems - neither egcs nor 2.95.2 appears to have any
> trouble with the CVS tree.

Neither does 2.96-68.

LLaP
bero