From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 14 10:21:21 2002
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from h132-197-179-27.gte.com (h132-197-179-27.gte.com [132.197.179.27])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 88B0637B421; Thu, 14 Mar 2002 10:20:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kanpc.gte.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by h132-197-179-27.gte.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g2EIKpJT000978;
	Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:20:51 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from ak03@kanpc.gte.com)
Received: (from ak03@localhost)
	by kanpc.gte.com (8.12.2/8.12.2/Submit) id g2EIKpD5000977;
	Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:20:51 -0500 (EST)
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 13:20:51 -0500
From: Alexander Kabaev <ak03@gte.com>
To: <jstocker@tzi.de>
Cc: mb@imp.ch, tlambert2@mindspring.com, imp@village.org,
	edhall@weirdnoise.com, kris@obsecurity.org, current@FreeBSD.ORG,
	hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, obrien@FreeBSD.ORG,
	edhall@screech.weirdnoise.com
Subject: Re: gcc -O broken in CURRENT
Message-Id: <20020314132051.7f17a55b.ak03@gte.com>
In-Reply-To: <000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>
References: <20020314112547.55cc5786.ak03@gte.com>
	<000601c1cb7e$b82c18a0$fe02010a@twoflower.liebende.de>
Organization: Verizon Data Services
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.7.4claws5 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-hackers.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-hackers>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> 2) Bug is in os delivered gcc but not in port gcc.
>    a) port has more or less patches / os gcc has been modified
>       --> Didn't someone told they are the same?
GCC from ports uses DWARF2 exception unwinding while GCC in src tree
uses sjlj exceptions. The exception handling code generated by these two
compilers is very different as a result.

>    b) other options were set at compile time
>       --> Why dont change to the same in the port?
>           Leads it to a broken world?
>           If the only difference is the lost of binary compatibility,
>           i would say, ok... do it now and we'll need to compile
>           or ports...
Pretty much each and every C++ binary and shared library will have to be
recompiled. Massive binary compatibility breakage is not an option for
-STABLE, one can hope.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message