Thu, Oct 23 2003
11:08:17
|
|
Request killed by bernhard
|
|
Thu, Oct 23 2003
11:21:25
|
|
Mail sent by neteler@itc.it
|
|
Return-Path |
<neteler@itc.it>
|
Delivered-To |
grass-bugs@lists.intevation.de
|
Date |
Thu, 23 Oct 2003 11:21:15 +0200
|
From |
Markus Neteler <neteler@itc.it>
|
To |
Request Tracker <grass-bugs@intevation.de>
|
Cc |
grass5@grass.itc.it
|
Subject |
Re: [bug #2180] (grass) Re: [GRASS5] C and C++ compiler changes?
|
Message-ID |
<20031023112115.F9904@itc.it>
|
Mail-Followup-To |
Request Tracker <grass-bugs@intevation.de>, grass5@grass.itc.it
|
References |
<20031022135914.14D2813BC0@lists.intevation.de>
|
Mime-Version |
1.0
|
Content-Type |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
Content-Disposition |
inline
|
User-Agent |
Mutt/1.2.5.1i
|
In-Reply-To |
<20031022135914.14D2813BC0@lists.intevation.de>; from grass-bugs@intevation.de on Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:59:14PM +0200
|
X-Spam-Status |
No, hits=-4.9 tagged_above=-999.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00
|
X-Spam-Level |
|
On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 03:59:14PM +0200, Request Tracker wrote:
> this bug's URL: http://intevation.de/rt/webrt?serial_num=2180
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 10:36:00AM +0200, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 08:05:32PM +0200, Thierry Laronde wrote:
> > >
> > > Great. All I wanted to emphasize ---since I have spent some times trying
> > > to convince GNU libc (latest) and GNU cc (latest) to compile smoothly
> > > together...--- is that we are going to have some hard time with mixes
> > > of different versions of gcc and glibc... And the C++ support has deeply
> > > changed too!
> >
> > Well it is _only_ about the C++ support as far as I always understood this.
> > Mixing most of the plain C libraries have never been a major problem.
> > Am I missing something?
>
> No, in the sense that the "user apparent" changes are with the C++ part.
> But unfortunately, GCC 3.3.1 for example has some bugs in optimization
> and inlining meaning that we will have some rough times with compilation
> failures reports that may be caused by bugs in the compiler and not in
> the code (for example some version(s) of glibc doesn't compile with it
> and one can compile a Linux kernel with it that will cause bugs (in my
> case this was reboot) : but compilation succeeds...; so imagine the
> hell if a glibc compiles but is buggy!).
Naive question:
Should/can add we a test in the (G)makefile and disable certain gcc versions
to avoid too many "bug" reports?
Markus
|
|
Thu, Oct 23 2003
11:21:25
|
|
Status changed to open by _rt_system
|
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
09:37:26
|
|
Mail sent by msieczka
|
|
Markus wrote:
> Naive question:
> Should/can add we a test in the (G)makefile and disable certain gcc versions
> to avoid too many "bug" reports?
This report is strange - first killed by Berhard, then reopened by Markus.
Could you take a look and tell me what to with it?
Thanks,
Maciek |
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
12:33:02
|
|
Status changed to resolved by bernhard
|
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
12:33:02
|
|
Comments added by bernhard
|
|
I do not remember the precise reason why I killed the report.
It might have been because the content was different from
what Markus quoted and not a bug in GRASS or unsolvable in principle.
Usually I would have just resolved the issue then.
Anyway, what I gather from Markus old emails (that automatically had reopened
the issue), we can savely resolve it.
Compiler and library errors are not directly GRASS bugs
and AFAICS we are not into the C++ swamp too deeply with the core of GRASS
anways. |
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
18:25:35
|
|
Mail sent by tlaronde@polynum.com
|
|
Return-Path |
<tlaronde@polynum.com>
|
Delivered-To |
grass-bugs@lists.intevation.de
|
Date |
Tue, 20 Sep 2005 18:26:33 +0200
|
From |
tlaronde@polynum.com
|
To |
Maciek Sieczka via RT <grass-bugs@intevation.de>
|
Cc |
grass5@grass.itc.it, neteler@itc.it, bernhard@intevation.de
|
Subject |
Re: [bug #2180] (grass) Re: [GRASS5] C and C++ compiler changes?
|
Message-ID |
<20050920162633.GA26873@polynum.com>
|
References |
<20050920073726.E61E2101EEA@lists.intevation.de>
|
Mime-Version |
1.0
|
Content-Type |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
|
Content-Disposition |
inline
|
In-Reply-To |
<20050920073726.E61E2101EEA@lists.intevation.de>
|
User-Agent |
Mutt/1.4.2.1i
|
X-Spam-Status |
No, hits=-4.7 tagged_above=-999.0 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, NO_REAL_NAME
|
X-Spam-Level |
|
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 09:37:26AM +0200, Maciek Sieczka via RT wrote:
> Markus wrote:
> > Naive question:
> > Should/can add we a test in the (G)makefile and disable certain gcc versions
> > to avoid too many "bug" reports?
>
> This report is strange - first killed by Berhard, then reopened by Markus.
> Could you take a look and tell me what to with it?
If I recall correctly, when I participate in such a discussion this was
about reports involving C++ and a "new"---at the time--- gcc(1) line having
some problems since C++ handling had changed.
What to do about this is typically an engineering decision, so it is not
mine.
FWIW, my personal options are :
1) Do not use C++;
2) Filter pb reports at arriving (don't store them inconditionnally)
to detect real problems with the code (portability---a filter on
the compiler version may hide real problems) and to discard user
side problems;
3) When the toolchain is at fault, provide hints in the building
documentation; simpler work around is to explicitely say that these
versions of tools are not supported.
(indeed, treating pb reports at arriving takes less time than pruning
afterwards).
It seems you are already discussing about your bug tracker (say this is
another option to 2). For 1), code exists in GRASS GPL so you are
unlikely to drop it soon. The simpler is to not let it get in ;)
For 3) this takes some time and this is always the problem.
But once more I have nothing to say about your way. If you are waiting
after me, between others, to decide about what to do with this bug
report, _for me_ (I'm not a GRASS GPL user), simply discard it since
problems discussed then are less frequent now (gcc(1) has evolved) and
the problems to address are more general and you are already discussing
these options (bug tracker should hold only hard facts).
Cheers,
--
Thierry Laronde (Alceste) <tlaronde +AT+ polynum +dot+ com>
http://www.kergis.org/ | http://www.kergis.com/
Key fingerprint = 0FF7 E906 FBAF FE95 FD89 250D 52B1 AE95 6006 F40C
|
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
18:25:35
|
|
Status changed to open by _rt_system
|
|
Tue, Sep 20 2005
18:36:57
|
|
Status changed to resolved by bernhard
|
|