[opensuse-factory] Call for action: default gcc4.7
Hi, I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch. Volunteers? Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
Hi,
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
Volunteers?
Stephan, I am willing to work on the fallout of packages in 'my' domain (so mainly GNOME and some dependent libs). Frankly, I have no idea what to expect from it, so it could be disasterous. One first step should clearly be to get a staging repo up and seeing the fallouts with gcc 4.7 in order to be able to make any kind of estimates. So far we could as well be lucky and 'just pass' it (ok, I know that's not true: libproxy 0.4.7 at least will fail, but this has been fixed upstream already). One bonus for us: Fedora started that work, so there is potentially a big bunch of upstreams fixed already or we can 'borrow' patches. How much pre-work had been done on that? Do we have gcc 4.7 packages available? Do we already have an estimated number of fallouts? A list of typical 'things to fix'? Either way: Count me in as a resource for fixing stuff, as time permits (gnome packages are getting too few and too easy :P ) Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13.03.2012 10:50, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
Hi,
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
Volunteers?
Stephan,
I am willing to work on the fallout of packages in 'my' domain (so mainly GNOME and some dependent libs). Frankly, I have no idea what to expect from it, so it could be disasterous.
One first step should clearly be to get a staging repo up and seeing the fallouts with gcc 4.7 in order to be able to make any kind of estimates. So far we could as well be lucky and 'just pass' it (ok, I know that's not true: libproxy 0.4.7 at least will fail, but this has been fixed upstream already).
One bonus for us: Fedora started that work, so there is potentially a big bunch of upstreams fixed already or we can 'borrow' patches.
How much pre-work had been done on that? Do we have gcc 4.7 packages available? Do we already have an estimated number of fallouts? A list of typical 'things to fix'?
There is a gcc47 package pending legal review and Richard posted a mail from fedora mass build results - there will be quite a lot of fallout. I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :) Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/2012 11:04 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
I tried that but: <useforbuild> <disable/> </useforbuild> regards, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPXyX5AAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJ2NoQAKOz8S7Vg5lqXK3Q/IkDAINQ Ps27vN6NJtL8LjebFB713L1BJTe0JpQdAZJhTiMJTBQtu4l5ggyz6HD1aaUxqLzc MSK2+Jfcl+HboOXxep/93iJnrL/GL2Ssbqo+jWZ618CyZ4QYj22XEMQ5OeCgIqFf V5nRRLAGdGhk0VWKneNeXurfHtYMyhSI0ndEwdC3CKRA8/D8PlY0xxqxI37vMygS IFSWMMcO8lcPPQFRS+bxwTg2TToTPcYCaN39ykk2kFypN2OC3Kcx5dCxKrvfAS/s +sGbUxATpKXluss8PPGIaFNQMH4/qE6rU/CrQFGWXYKN7OOut8GExzyZIUaQRgdq e6oMoxVspTpkuhkkgMaH8ER2UYmcT4l+UkIB1YVCVj/9R54Jw/nWmjbMkOmdoM2l A1MN5bDRK2JRhqBKtSft1qTwYXV7N5IaLxm3aTmPaQi7Fz6t2lnrEIvRe766W84a xPxDZwhCdfhdCuaD4NtjaDWDeoxqCSRwBsKm7vr8FSMd0BFptWFqTWlAd2lYGEwz 75t1tyQll4aUmuuJyy50gzC8pqvsAe6DpazhE4z61CVQlFttaw9/gY1e7PHNKBM8 IIHd6iZ9r2o2cZdW3BtR8dfbB236/7TzB1cvfO5gT9ptpdM0jRCg4j37u6Fsb47Z M6BBFpdLthgMKYHlbW55 =5c8w -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13.03.2012 11:48, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/13/2012 11:04 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
I tried that but: <useforbuild> <disable/> </useforbuild>
Which is exactly as I configured it to avoid mass rebuilds within the package. I only want to see how the packages build against gcc 47 not how long it takes. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/2012 12:10 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 11:48, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/13/2012 11:04 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
I tried that but: <useforbuild> <disable/> </useforbuild>
Which is exactly as I configured it to avoid mass rebuilds within the package. I only want to see how the packages build against gcc 47 not how long it takes.
Sorry, then I don't understand how we are supposed to test build of our packages by gcc47? Or what do you want us to check in the first place? regards, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPXyydAAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJjV0QAJ6r776+W6RoOcQPfoZJvecw 0Zc0fCIPr1XQ21N3SkwaSMg+c4z2/DtyFcdWC7Zb+H/OxAYKST+X9CX/EfmyyOYU R3+Veg8g5ECYI0wS/MbFGJj8HAdfVpFfbA8EtVVToz+K7FxCvddvpknzlxIu4EV/ q58Co/DtjOHsJsILoCbTA2yD81iiKu7vPxwaA8lfWDa2rD/CJw7FWyxgewt6sQ2c +/30Lcg3booapTuMqPC+pMD3K6ZfnxQOnNjZcYpqlALZ3TIdtiUwCruGvmPjSZ2B mD8dj/gUUPJ+QSpCY6JkzRPJkQreVZ5Qi6JwA2GbvNDw7WKSQ57xvPZ73PI/aG9z Tt6tuKIJDO+u9HVKhGzre+/cmuc3yq4UaBNfRfDtT3v7xw+jFUV85cBjxjO4C/Th FkSBiBdIAjSlCUPtmIxrCEtjobsyoDFya0kYPGd6yT5W4OwtPHCfBsOd869PREMB BEArDPOtKm+Wcn2gTuUlWQ4hGVXTDkZW5Zzk1Hk7eEJ6x/Bs/m2Rc1prvKIgWOon UDJqegdHKuN2gKPYnb9YzVtZxM3UMWMaiPwt+egCBGltsgwRjsDBSgTPGpkjeTGC cbSLtyDx35EyrwQiI9reV2SFFhmniB4Fonr2cgbvyStXUzLlo+oZRcCNlfDDZ3JG Bpi2t6871qdK42UERD05 =hn9s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13.03.2012 12:16, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/13/2012 12:10 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 11:48, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/13/2012 11:04 AM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
I tried that but: <useforbuild> <disable/> </useforbuild>
Which is exactly as I configured it to avoid mass rebuilds within the package. I only want to see how the packages build against gcc 47 not how long it takes.
Sorry, then I don't understand how we are supposed to test build of our packages by gcc47?
Or what do you want us to check in the first place?
This project is not a project to build against in the first place, but a staging project of factory - a project link with changed gcc. gcc and gcc47 have useforbuild enabled, all other packages will not be used for building. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/13/2012 12:21 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Or what do you want us to check in the first place?
This project is not a project to build against in the first place, but a staging project of factory - a project link with changed gcc.
So if I understand correctly, there will appear all factory packages, built by gcc 4.7. And we should check if they build OK? regards, - -- js suse labs -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJPXy5sAAoJEL0lsQQGtHBJOQYP/0aQLjtG2ClLQwGLuTrW3++r m0/jxvspReEZZI29nKOjq9u+i/q8CiE4UbLto+l457UT1xdTTq2n2XYaMcC5BbTN +XSxMb40yd1lZvQCRhm82qyjQ9owUIfGY/wTDkXCi34J4oyYS8pmR/Acc9+q3Bwc c731bFKXPxrBWa4Aa2DYFMVASy4QkK9NFR9YNpdLTkT5xouPzI6CslI/o0emOZXJ ar+TlbtaNr9rTOCyDfJaoGXgPSI+AYsVbPXezhm3hSi4m7kBYdiSEvC4c6J7mNAx ysxU3pUbzTcRIOEiSzGzjMoAFyJPCjKMUeEVqKkZUohwebj2+BjEyK/XeXg5u9Ke sWlIcb050AdFgqEys/YH81quDyi9d0LhhaTnr5U+KW2I9aQoV0O0BvEe5iveD+z7 vgIsyahdj4cTrLAsvsy/+Geo5Br3iEPy1YUN5CUcxwh73G7BfXqXNtSZVAmf1FY/ YYwjPCJHuMUGd/59cZJdRBq1VC9JbYwHFeEN6gC9CkDZdGsdSWxmndCVyItDdJRF xT+gw6cYh98stjyCNihnV66POZKXv5T0LmU5IBWeB0ioNdt5ZNO5e8R05ZCeObY8 GtGHh5uRIyo1qtmN2basVzGFrJxFa0UojCOGKlha6YxikoBhl5lTqg3N37ds+fjY kTlKgPCv/kbOe9j0J8lz =ToI2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13.03.2012 12:24, Jiri Slaby wrote:
On 03/13/2012 12:21 PM, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Or what do you want us to check in the first place?
This project is not a project to build against in the first place, but a staging project of factory - a project link with changed gcc.
So if I understand correctly, there will appear all factory packages, built by gcc 4.7. And we should check if they build OK?
Yes, they are there but disabled as long as gcc47 hasn't finished building. I'll need to change the project config afterwards, but that should be it. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 10:50, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
Hi,
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
Volunteers?
Stephan,
I am willing to work on the fallout of packages in 'my' domain (so mainly GNOME and some dependent libs). Frankly, I have no idea what to expect from it, so it could be disasterous.
One first step should clearly be to get a staging repo up and seeing the fallouts with gcc 4.7 in order to be able to make any kind of estimates. So far we could as well be lucky and 'just pass' it (ok, I know that's not true: libproxy 0.4.7 at least will fail, but this has been fixed upstream already).
One bonus for us: Fedora started that work, so there is potentially a big bunch of upstreams fixed already or we can 'borrow' patches.
How much pre-work had been done on that? Do we have gcc 4.7 packages available? Do we already have an estimated number of fallouts? A list of typical 'things to fix'?
There is a gcc47 package pending legal review and Richard posted a mail from fedora mass build results - there will be quite a lot of fallout.
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
There is the devel:gcc:gcc47 repository which you can build against as well, it has GCC 4.7 as the default compiler. Legal review has just finished, so eventually GCC 4.7 should appear in Factory (but not as a default for now). The internal build-service is also setup to mass-build Factory packages for all architectures internally available btw (home:rguenther:plygrnd, currently disabled). Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
On 13.03.2012 10:50, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote: There is a gcc47 package pending legal review and Richard posted a mail from fedora mass build results - there will be quite a lot of fallout.
I created openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47 for you - hope you won't be alone :)
Greetings, Stephan
On Stephan's great recommendation I went through the list of packages failing in Gcc47 Staging area that were not currently listed as 'failed' in openSUSE:Factory. Assuming that this is the list of packages to work on, I branched them into home:dimstar:gcc47 This list is now 'shorter' (currently only 77 packages, but Gcc Staging still had > 3000 packages 'scheduled' to let fail). IT's good to have a base to work on at least. Anybody else volunteering to work on gcc 4.7 issues, I recommend to work with me on this 'single list' instead of redoing the work in several places. I have no problem of granting anybody access to this repo, so we don't have to go through SRs to speed up things. From this repo, all packages will need to be SRed to their respective devel projects. This should keep us on track I hope. Looking forward to all your help! I will certainly not touch all of those packages! Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting "Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar" <DimStar@openSUSE.org>:
On Stephan's great recommendation I went through the list of packages failing in Gcc47 Staging area that were not currently listed as 'failed' in openSUSE:Factory. Assuming that this is the list of packages to work on, I branched them into home:dimstar:gcc47
This list is now 'shorter' (currently only 77 packages, but Gcc Staging still had > 3000 packages 'scheduled' to let fail). IT's good to have a base to work on at least.
Anybody else volunteering to work on gcc 4.7 issues, I recommend to work with me on this 'single list' instead of redoing the work in several places. I have no problem of granting anybody access to this repo, so we don't have to go through SRs to speed up things.
From this repo, all packages will need to be SRed to their respective devel projects. This should keep us on track I hope.
Looking forward to all your help! I will certainly not touch all of those packages!
Hi everybody! So, the gcc 4.7 testing does have some progress. So far there have been 21 SRs with fixes done from home:dimstar:gcc47 to their respective devel projects. This is quite good for the short time... but there is still a lot to do. At this point a big 'Thank you' to the helpers taking care of fixing those packages and also the reviewers spotting last-minute bugs introduced in patches... your work is very valuable in this move to gcc 4.7. About home:dimstar:gcc47: This project has been setup to link all the packages that currently fail in openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47.. But: it does not link the version that is currently in Factory, but the package from the respective devel-repo. Like this we were already able to identify a few packages that would fail in Factory with gcc 4.7, but have been updated to later version and do build in my branch! That's great... those packages just would need to be forwarded (examples packages of this kind are libwebkit/libwebkit3 and boost.) Unfortunately, with all those good news, I'm afraid we're also hit by a bug in gcc :P Especially the build of llvm aborts with a very strange error of undefined symbols, done in the gcc include tree: make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/APInt.cpp.o] Error 1 In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/lib/Support/Allocator.cpp:16: In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/include/llvm/Support/Recycler.h:18: In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:44: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/iterator:63: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ostream:39: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ios:42: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/bits/ios_base.h:40: /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ext/atomicity.h:48:45: error: use of undeclared identifier '__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL' { return __atomic_fetch_add(__mem, __val, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL); } ^ /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ext/atomicity.h:52:38: error: use of undeclared identifier '__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL' { __atomic_fetch_add(__mem, __val, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL); } ^ 2 errors generated. make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/APFloat.cpp.o] Error 1 2 errors generated. make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/Allocator.cpp.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.MmKjDo (%build => I really doubt that this is something that should be fixed in llvm, but the gcc include file might be missing something more... I will glady hear different opinions or even better, see patches :P So far, that's it for todays status update! Wish you all a good night! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
Quoting "Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar" <DimStar@openSUSE.org>:
On Stephan's great recommendation I went through the list of packages failing in Gcc47 Staging area that were not currently listed as 'failed' in openSUSE:Factory. Assuming that this is the list of packages to work on, I branched them into home:dimstar:gcc47
This list is now 'shorter' (currently only 77 packages, but Gcc Staging still had > 3000 packages 'scheduled' to let fail). IT's good to have a base to work on at least.
Anybody else volunteering to work on gcc 4.7 issues, I recommend to work with me on this 'single list' instead of redoing the work in several places. I have no problem of granting anybody access to this repo, so we don't have to go through SRs to speed up things.
From this repo, all packages will need to be SRed to their respective devel projects. This should keep us on track I hope.
Looking forward to all your help! I will certainly not touch all of those packages!
Hi everybody!
So, the gcc 4.7 testing does have some progress. So far there have been 21 SRs with fixes done from home:dimstar:gcc47 to their respective devel projects.
This is quite good for the short time... but there is still a lot to do.
At this point a big 'Thank you' to the helpers taking care of fixing those packages and also the reviewers spotting last-minute bugs introduced in patches... your work is very valuable in this move to gcc 4.7.
About home:dimstar:gcc47: This project has been setup to link all the packages that currently fail in openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc47.. But: it does not link the version that is currently in Factory, but the package from the respective devel-repo.
Like this we were already able to identify a few packages that would fail in Factory with gcc 4.7, but have been updated to later version and do build in my branch! That's great... those packages just would need to be forwarded (examples packages of this kind are libwebkit/libwebkit3 and boost.)
Unfortunately, with all those good news, I'm afraid we're also hit by a bug in gcc :P
Especially the build of llvm aborts with a very strange error of undefined symbols, done in the gcc include tree:
make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/APInt.cpp.o] Error 1 In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/lib/Support/Allocator.cpp:16: In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/include/llvm/Support/Recycler.h:18: In file included from /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm-3.0/include/llvm/ADT/ilist.h:44: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/iterator:63: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ostream:39: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ios:42: In file included from /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/bits/ios_base.h:40: /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ext/atomicity.h:48:45: error: use of undeclared identifier '__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL' { return __atomic_fetch_add(__mem, __val, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL); } ^ /usr/lib/gcc/i586-suse-linux/4.7/../../../../include/c++/4.7/ext/atomicity.h:52:38: error: use of undeclared identifier '__ATOMIC_ACQ_REL' { __atomic_fetch_add(__mem, __val, __ATOMIC_ACQ_REL); } ^ 2 errors generated. make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/APFloat.cpp.o] Error 1 2 errors generated. make[2]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/Allocator.cpp.o] Error 1 make[1]: *** [lib/Support/CMakeFiles/LLVMSupport.dir/all] Error 2 make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.MmKjDo (%build
=> I really doubt that this is something that should be fixed in llvm, but the gcc include file might be missing something more... I will glady hear different opinions or even better, see patches :P
You know the drill ... open a bugzilla and attach preprocessed source of the file that exhibits this error. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer
Le mardi 13 mars 2012, à 05:50 -0400, Dominique Leuenberger a écrit :
(gnome packages are getting too few and too easy :P )
Be sure that I'll keep this quote for later when we'll suffer some pain with gnome packages ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13 March 2012 09:22, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
There wasn't some kind of (accidental?) ABI breakage? I would not want 12.2 to be incompatible with everything else. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13.03.2012 11:47, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
On 13 March 2012 09:22, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
There wasn't some kind of (accidental?) ABI breakage? I would not want 12.2 to be incompatible with everything else.
Haem, not sure when that started to matter - but you're incompatible as soon as you compile against latest glibc symbols. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 11:47, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
On 13 March 2012 09:22, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
There wasn't some kind of (accidental?) ABI breakage? I would not want 12.2 to be incompatible with everything else.
Haem, not sure when that started to matter - but you're incompatible as soon as you compile against latest glibc symbols.
GCC 4.7 libraries installed on a 11.1 (yes, I know ...) work just fine. They are ABI (backward) compatible. Everything else would be a bug. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer
On 13 March 2012 12:09, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 11:47, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
On 13 March 2012 09:22, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
There wasn't some kind of (accidental?) ABI breakage? I would not want 12.2 to be incompatible with everything else.
Haem, not sure when that started to matter - but you're incompatible as soon as you compile against latest glibc symbols.
GCC 4.7 libraries installed on a 11.1 (yes, I know ...) work just fine. They are ABI (backward) compatible. Everything else would be a bug.
Using Google to remember... What I was thinking was about is http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/163320.html. But it seems the problem was fixed before the 4.7 official release and they had the problem just because they were using pre-release versions. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
On 13 March 2012 12:09, Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 13.03.2012 11:47, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:
On 13 March 2012 09:22, Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de> wrote:
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
There wasn't some kind of (accidental?) ABI breakage? I would not want 12.2 to be incompatible with everything else.
Haem, not sure when that started to matter - but you're incompatible as soon as you compile against latest glibc symbols.
GCC 4.7 libraries installed on a 11.1 (yes, I know ...) work just fine. They are ABI (backward) compatible. Everything else would be a bug.
Using Google to remember... What I was thinking was about is http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-February/163320.html. But it seems the problem was fixed before the 4.7 official release and they had the problem just because they were using pre-release versions.
Yes. Note that 4.7 is not yet officially released. Richard. -- Richard Guenther <rguenther@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer
Quoting Stephan Kulow <coolo@suse.de>:
Hi,
I would like to know if someone had an interest in switching 12.2 to gcc 4.7 as default. Because it's quite some work and we'd need to start *NOW* - but it requires some people to actually work on it and take control. E.g. in mass building factory with it and fixing packages *before* we switch.
Volunteers?
Stephan, I started looking into smoe of the packages yesterday evening and gave some fixing love. I think so far the biggest problem I have identified is less the GCC 4.7 'issue' than a 'workflow' issue around it. Main problems: - As long as I do the work alone (hope not), it's easy: I knw what I checked and touched, but once multiple people start, it will be difficult to keep track - A lot of failures are also in oS:F and thus attributed to gcc 4.7; it would be great to just see a 'difference pattern' between what failed in Staging:Gcc47 but worked in oS:F For a bunch of packages we'll surely end up writing patches. It would be great to get a commitment from the 'package maintainers' to push the patches upstream, so that the 'team' working on resolving gcc 4.7 build faiures can focus on just that, instead of chasing after a dozen of bugzilla counts. Dominique For reference, the packages touched yesterday: - rpm - udev - flac - libproxy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 14.03.2012 08:52, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:
- A lot of failures are also in oS:F and thus attributed to gcc 4.7; it would be great to just see a 'difference pattern' between what failed in Staging:Gcc47 but worked in oS:F
True, a common problem to those fighting with updates. Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Cristian Morales Vega -
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar -
Jiri Slaby -
Richard Guenther -
Stephan Kulow -
Vincent Untz