forwarded message from Gerald Pfeifer
I just got this message from the gcc-announce list. We've seen bug reports related to GCC 2.96 (which may or may not be the problem). We need to be aware that these releases are out there and can be a problem. I've noticed that the version of GCC shipped with Mandrake 7.1 is "gcc version 2.95.3 19991030 (prerelease)", which doesn't give my much confidence either. ;( -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:14:20PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
The 'unstable' branch of Debian currently ships with: gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux) and it seems to be working fine. I did notice a problem, but it was related to glibc 2.1.94, not gcc: LONG_BIT was wrongly defined to 64. Tim's sanity-check, which checks LONG_BIT against (SIZEOF_LONG * 8), would have caught that one, but I found it on my machine before he checked in that fix ;) For me, that problem was caused by the /usr/include/bits/xopen_lim.h include file: /* Number of bits in a word of type ong int'. */ #if LONG_MAX == 2147483647 # define LONG_BIT 32 #else /* Safe assumption. */ # define LONG_BIT 64 #endif where LONG_MAX was not defined (yet). I fixed it 'manually' for more than just Python by adding #ifndef LONG_MAX #define LONG_MAX 2147483647 #endif above it. I had to laugh, though, when I saw that assuming longs had 64 bits is considered 'a safe assumption'. I guess most people use 64 bit machines nowadays ? :-) I'm not complaining about this, though. Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) is bleeding edge, and I'm fully prepared to live with it. In fact, I love it! But people testing out glibc 2.1.90+ should keep this in mind. I'm also wondering where to send my bugreport, but I think I'll read some documentation before I do that, first ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
Thomas Wouters writes:
I understand this to be the latest "stable" version of GCC, and it appearantly it has been accepted as such for a while now.
Hey, my machine is 4294967296 bits! Forget those ancient 64 bit machines! ;-)
I'm less concerned about people who know they're deliberatly putting themselves on the bleeding edge than the people that pick up the latest version of some Linux distribution and find they have a buggy compiler because the distribution builders weren't as careful as perhaps they should have been. Putting together a professional grade Linux distro is still a very hard thing. There's no such thing as enough testing here! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
On Thu, Oct 05, 2000 at 08:14:20PM -0400, Fred L. Drake, Jr. wrote:
The 'unstable' branch of Debian currently ships with: gcc version 2.95.2 20000220 (Debian GNU/Linux) and it seems to be working fine. I did notice a problem, but it was related to glibc 2.1.94, not gcc: LONG_BIT was wrongly defined to 64. Tim's sanity-check, which checks LONG_BIT against (SIZEOF_LONG * 8), would have caught that one, but I found it on my machine before he checked in that fix ;) For me, that problem was caused by the /usr/include/bits/xopen_lim.h include file: /* Number of bits in a word of type ong int'. */ #if LONG_MAX == 2147483647 # define LONG_BIT 32 #else /* Safe assumption. */ # define LONG_BIT 64 #endif where LONG_MAX was not defined (yet). I fixed it 'manually' for more than just Python by adding #ifndef LONG_MAX #define LONG_MAX 2147483647 #endif above it. I had to laugh, though, when I saw that assuming longs had 64 bits is considered 'a safe assumption'. I guess most people use 64 bit machines nowadays ? :-) I'm not complaining about this, though. Woody (Debian's current unstable tree) is bleeding edge, and I'm fully prepared to live with it. In fact, I love it! But people testing out glibc 2.1.90+ should keep this in mind. I'm also wondering where to send my bugreport, but I think I'll read some documentation before I do that, first ;) -- Thomas Wouters <thomas@xs4all.net> Hi! I'm a .signature virus! copy me into your .signature file to help me spread!
Thomas Wouters writes:
I understand this to be the latest "stable" version of GCC, and it appearantly it has been accepted as such for a while now.
Hey, my machine is 4294967296 bits! Forget those ancient 64 bit machines! ;-)
I'm less concerned about people who know they're deliberatly putting themselves on the bleeding edge than the people that pick up the latest version of some Linux distribution and find they have a buggy compiler because the distribution builders weren't as careful as perhaps they should have been. Putting together a professional grade Linux distro is still a very hard thing. There's no such thing as enough testing here! -Fred -- Fred L. Drake, Jr. <fdrake at beopen.com> BeOpen PythonLabs Team Member
participants (2)
-
Fred L. Drake, Jr. -
Thomas Wouters