X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <449C88AB.55A2F04A@dessent.net>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 17:34:51 -0700
From: Brian Dessent <brian AT dessent DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: g++ 4.1?
References: <loom DOT 20060620T220001-703 AT post DOT gmane DOT org> 	 <44987580 DOT 32006EA AT dessent DOT net> <afe5197f0606230600p1bd4c91av7e88eaf4a55a0aca AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <449BE972 DOT B1D2CA47 AT dessent DOT net> <449C5B93 DOT 1000805 AT cwilson DOT fastmail DOT fm>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Charles Wilson wrote:

> Sure. and all of these people have tested all known issues such as
> exception propagation from DLLs in C++ -- which isn't covered by the
> test suite?  Do they even KNOW about some of the issues like DWARF2/sjlj
> interactions with native windows?  and NOBODY, but NOBODY, has succeeded
> in getting a real, working, exception-supporting build of libgcj in 4.1
> or later (over 900 libjava testsuite failures, Brian?  That's your idea
> of "WJFFM"? You've gotta be kidding.)

Chuck, I know all about these problems.  I follow three or four gcc
development lists, the Cygwin list, the mingw list, etc.  I know that
libgcj is horribly broken, I know that using cygming 4.x in production
right now would be foolhearty.

But that's not what the poster asked!  He didn't ask if 4.x was stable,
he asked how to build it, and that he doubted that it was even
possible.  He posted that he had gotten two specific errors, and I
replied that those might be due to him trying to do a profiledbootstrap
and not showstoppers.

The configure command I used is in the testresult output, and I truly
just ran that and let it sit for 48 hours or whatever.  I did not patch
any files, modify anything in /usr/include, set any environment
variables (that I know of), etc.

You can certainly argue that a compiler that is broken is certain areas
is not "working" even if the build is successful, but I disagree.  Maybe
he doesn't care about gcj.  Maybe he is just compiling pure C code that
doesn't use exceptions.  Maybe he just wants to evaluate the brokenness
of the compiler for himself.  He didn't say and it's not my place to
assume.  But you have to be able to at least build the thing before you
can decide if it's broken, and that is what my "W" in WJFFM was
referring to: the ability to build gcc 4 under Cygwin.  I don't believe
that discouraging people from even thinking about testing gcc is a good
idea, as the cygming port needs all the help it can get, and if that
means more testing and bug reporting then so be it.

If he had asked "is gcc 4 stable and well tested" then I would have
replied differently.

Brian

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/