Details Ticket 2180


Comment | Reply | Take | Open


Serial Number 2180
Subject Re: [GRASS5] C and C++ compiler changes?
Area none
Queue grass
Requestors tlaronde@polynum.com
Owner none
Status resolved
Last User Contact Tue Sep 20 09:37:26 2005 (3 yr ago)
Current Priority 30
Final Priority 70
Due No date assigned
Last Action Tue Sep 20 18:36:57 2005 (3 yr ago)
Created Wed Oct 22 15:59:14 2003 (5 yr ago)

Transaction History Ticket 2180


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  
Comment | Reply | Take | Open

You are currently authenticated as guest.
[Show Configuration] [Login as another user]

Users Guide - Mail Commands - Homepage of RequestTracker 1.0.7 - list any request