Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 15:54:31 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Removing default build of gcc Message-ID: <5102F107.8090501@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20130125204430.GX2522@kib.kiev.ua> References: <74D8E686-3679-46F2-8A08-4CF5DFC020CA@FreeBSD.org> <20130125113122.GN2522@kib.kiev.ua> <E0EA1F1F-99BB-47F5-94A3-1C197F680BD9@bsdimp.com> <20130125195941.GW2522@kib.kiev.ua> <5102ECBF.4060500@FreeBSD.org> <20130125204430.GX2522@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 01/25/2013 15:44, Konstantin Belousov wrote: ... >>> I am really tired of the constant struggle against the consumation of >>> the FreeBSD as the test-bed for the pre-alpha quality software. E.g., >>> are we fine with broken C++ runtime in 9 ? >> The libstdc++ issue is really REALLY worrying. >> I would prefer if the hack to attempt using libstdc++ as a filter >> library were reverted altogether in 9.x. >> >> I had a lots of stress with that issue as some people pointed at >> my libstdc++ updates as possible root cause. I felt some natural >> relief when the real cause was found but I certainly wonder why >> the change was made in 9.x though since it's clear that codebase >> will not be migrated to libc++. > You were finger-pointed due to the rule 'blame the last committer > from the VCS log'. Even less so, you were asked about it because > you probably knew most about possible cause. Oh, I was finger-pointed quite long ago, but I didn't find the issue until you also fingerpointed so retroactively fingerpointing was clearly the right thing to do. It was nevertheless stressful as this is a pretty critical issue. C++ is (partially) broken in a stable release! > I am not worried about the bug itself, which needs a proper > identification and fixing. I am indeed wery disappointed regarding the > attitude of the person who introduced the bug. Reverting the split may > be the best action in my opinion. Both in head and stable. I am aware a fix is being worked on. I think that as long as the default compiler/C++ library works it is OK to make things easier for other compilers. I am OK with having that change in -current but for 9.x it is simply unacceptable. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5102F107.8090501>