FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian GCC

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-15-2010, 07:32 PM
Iain Buclaw
 
Default Bug#581698: similar bug in Ubuntu bugtracker

On 15 May 2010 17:51, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote:

I just found the following Bugreport in Ubuntu's bugtracker:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gdc-4.3/+bug/570913

("Classes nested in functions are not written to object files"), I guess it's the same bug.



Cheers,

- Daniel





That indeed it is, and I've been aware of it for a while.
I actually fixed this with the patch in bug 581240 - hitting two birds with one stone.
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581240#20
If you have a look, the update addresses two things.

1) Create a cgraph node only if a function requires a static chain - we don't care if the tree code isn't FUNCTION_DECL.2) Omit frame pointers in naked functions (bug #581240).


I see you raised another bug in libphobos, I'll have a look at that first before letting Matthias know to update gdc in sid.
Regards

--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
 
Old 05-16-2010, 12:31 AM
Daniel Gibson
 
Default Bug#581698: similar bug in Ubuntu bugtracker

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:

> That indeed it is, and I've been aware of it for a while.
> I actually fixed this with the patch in bug 581240 - hitting two birds with
> one stone.
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581240#20
> If you have a look, the update addresses two things.
> 1) Create a cgraph node only if a function requires a static chain - we
> don't care if the tree code isn't FUNCTION_DECL.
> 2) Omit frame pointers in naked functions (bug #581240).
>
> I see you raised another bug in libphobos, I'll have a look at that first
> before letting Matthias know to update gdc in sid.
> Regards
> --
> Iain Buclaw
>
> *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
>

I've tried your patch (compiling gdc took 67minutes on my laptop ._.)
and it does indeed fix both bugs for me. Great work :-)

On a side note: It seems like the gdc meta-package in squeeze was
updated recently now depends on gdc-4.3 instead of gdc-4.1 - is gdc
4.3 really stable enough to be the default gdc? I just played around
with D for a few days and discovered two bugs, so it seems to me that
gdc-4.3 is far from being as mature as gdc-4.1 ..

Cheers,
- Daniel



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: AANLkTinxUeWnDxWE_Hvkla3dYYyxQ8WtQT6VcrYPy2XP@mail .gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTinxUeWnDxWE_Hvkla3dYYyxQ8WtQT6VcrYPy2XP@mail .gmail.com
 
Old 05-16-2010, 09:11 AM
Iain Buclaw
 
Default Bug#581698: similar bug in Ubuntu bugtracker

On 16 May 2010 01:31, Daniel Gibson <metalcaedes@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 9:32 PM, Iain Buclaw <ibuclaw@ubuntu.com> wrote:



> That indeed it is, and I've been aware of it for a while.

> I actually fixed this with the patch in bug 581240 - hitting two birds with

> one stone.

> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=581240#20

> If you have a look, the update addresses two things.

> 1) Create a cgraph node only if a function requires a static chain - we

> don't care if the tree code isn't FUNCTION_DECL.

> 2) Omit frame pointers in naked functions (bug #581240).

>

> I see you raised another bug in libphobos, I'll have a look at that first

> before letting Matthias know to update gdc in sid.

> Regards

> --

> Iain Buclaw

>

> *(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';

>



I've tried your patch (compiling gdc took 67minutes on my laptop ._.)

and it does indeed fix both bugs for me. Great work :-)



On a side note: It seems like the gdc meta-package in squeeze was

updated recently now depends on gdc-4.3 instead of gdc-4.1 - is gdc

4.3 really stable enough to be the default gdc? I just played around

with D for a few days and discovered two bugs, so it seems to me that

gdc-4.3 is far from being as mature as gdc-4.1 ..



Cheers,

- Daniel


Two things to reply to your comments:1) It is "getting there", hopefully with more testers, all the most trivial bugs can be made shallow and squashed in time for the stable release.
2) If I recall correctly, the reason for gdc-4.1's drop from testing was because it currently fails to build from source by the more recent gcc compilers. So it's maintenance is out of my hands.

GCC development is always being pushed forwards, and gdc-4.3 is very late in the game.�Fingers crossed, there may be a gdc-4.5 within the year so it can help be brought back up to speed.�This will then be the release we can focus the most attention on (and scream at for all it's misfortune),�as 4.3 could very likely be removed in Squeeze+1.

Oh, and I wish compiling gdc took 67 minutes on my netbook.�It is more like 3 hours here...�At least I can be lazy in Ubuntu, and just use/abuse my Launchpad PPA to build everything for me.

Regards
--
Iain Buclaw

*(p < e ? p++ : p) = (c & 0x0f) + '0';
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org