From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Dec 4 00:49:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134A316A417; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:49:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (xorpc.icir.org [192.150.187.68]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E447E13C4E9; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 00:49:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rizzo@icir.org) Received: from xorpc.icir.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB40SBbi041609; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:28:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo@xorpc.icir.org) Received: (from rizzo@localhost) by xorpc.icir.org (8.12.11/8.12.3/Submit) id lB40SB6G041608; Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:28:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rizzo) Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:28:11 -0800 From: Luigi Rizzo To: "Wojciech A. Koszek" , freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org, daichi@FreeBSD.org, csjp@FreeBSD.org, jeffr@FreeBSD.org Message-ID: <20071203162811.A40075@xorpc.icir.org> References: <20071204000413.GA64160@FreeBSD.czest.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20071204000413.GA64160@FreeBSD.czest.pl>; from wkoszek@freebsd.org on Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:04:13AM +0000 Cc: Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Building newest src/ tree with gcc3 fails. X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:49:47 -0000 On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:04:13AM +0000, Wojciech A. Koszek wrote: > Hello all, > > I had to rebuild my two disks, each with pre-gcc 4.x era. There seem to > be a number of small bugs which gcc4 doesn't uncover while gcc3 does. > Thus, several problems you can encounter with WITH_GCC3 on newest src/ tree: i cannot tell about the 'function body not available' but some 'uninitialized' errors only come out because the compiler is not smart enough in the analysis of execution paths. Sometimes this also depends on the -O level used in compilation. So technically they are not bugs in the code, though of course it is a good idea to rewrite the source to be compatible with dumber compilers. cheers luigi