From owner-cvs-all Mon Sep 10 3: 1: 3 2001 Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from peter3.wemm.org (c1315225-a.plstn1.sfba.home.com [24.14.150.180]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6B4A37B405; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.wemm.org [10.0.0.3]) by peter3.wemm.org (8.11.0/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8AA0pM62742; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:00:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) Received: from wemm.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E0C238FF; Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:00:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@wemm.org) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.3.1 01/18/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: obrien@FreeBSD.org Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern subr_prf.c src/sys/sys systm.h In-Reply-To: <20010910010642.A48947@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2001 03:00:51 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <20010910100051.6E0C238FF@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG "David O'Brien" wrote: > On Sun, Sep 09, 2001 at 06:45:37PM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > peter 2001/09/09 18:45:37 PDT > > > > Modified files: > > sys/kern subr_prf.c > > sys/sys systm.h > > Log: > > This hack brought to you by some questionable ``optimizations'' in gcc-3. > > gcc-3 takes it apon itself to convert: > > printf("string\n") -> puts("string"); > > and: > > printf("a"); -> putchar('a') > > etc. I dont know what they've been smoking over there in gcc-land, but > > it must be pretty good stuff. > > > Please folks, don't do ANY gcc3 specific commits. I am working on our > upgrade and I need to be *totally* on top of what the compiler is doing > to us and how it affects us. Either I deal with this, or I pass the > torch on to others. There is plenty of work to go around in > FreeBSD'ville that people can just use the gcc 2.95.3 for now and work on > non-gcc3 issues. With this exception, the other changes I made were fixing existing problems that gcc-2.95.3 neglected to comment on. There are still macros with token concatenation bugs, and they are even bugs under 2.95.3. Are we not allowed to fix those just because gcc3 highlights them? And with all due respect to your testing procedures, it isn't exclusively your job to get the kernel to work with gcc-3. If you can land a valid compiler in the tree then you have succeeded. The rest of the tree can attend to itself - that is why our project is distributed. For what its worth, a kernel built with an unpatched gcc-3.0.1 release boots and runs fine on my laptop. I'm not expecting miracles, but the basic functionality seems to be there. Our usual problem area - the inline stuff that the mutexes use - doesn't seem to be broken either. Heck, when you get the damn thing imported, I'll buy you a round (or six) at a decent pub. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message