| Message ID | mcrlj4yl81n.fsf@google.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 13:18, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with and without > --enable-build-with-cxx. OK for mainline? I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? Diego.
On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 13:21, Diego Novillo <dnovillo@google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 13:18, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > >> Bootstrapped on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu with and without >> --enable-build-with-cxx. OK for mainline? > > I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this > goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? I implied doing this for next stage 1. Sorry I wasn't clear. Diego.
> I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this > goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? This will break Ada though, see PR ada/44431.
On Nov 12, 2010, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote: > 2010-11-12 Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> > * configure.ac: Use AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS. Remove switch of > AC_LANG based on ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX. Ok, thanks!
On Fri, 2010-11-12 at 19:25 +0100, Eric Botcazou wrote: > > I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this > > goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? > > This will break Ada though, see PR ada/44431. I've added Arnaud in the loop. Laurent
Eric Botcazou <ebotcazou@adacore.com> writes: >> I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this >> goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? > > This will break Ada though, see PR ada/44431. I want to make clear to all that my proposed patch, still awaiting review, will not break Ada. Eric is saying that making --enable-build-with-cxx the default will break Ada. That is independent of my proposed patch. Ian
On 11/12/2010 10:24 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: >> I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this >> goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? > > I implied doing this for next stage 1. It's definitely time to do this. We've debated it for years, reached a consensus (not without some dissent, but a consensus none-the-less). So, in GCC 4.6, Stage 1, let's flip the switch; the obvious patch is pre-approved. Thank you,
> > > I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this > > > goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? > > > > This will break Ada though, see PR ada/44431. > > I've added Arnaud in the loop. I'd suggest always using the C compiler for now to build GNAT, that should solve the issue of enabling --enable-build-with-cxx without having to modify any C file (only some Makefile changes). Since we require an older GNAT to bootstrap GNAT anyway, and GNAT always comes with a C compiler, that would not add any extra requirement. Arno
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 11/12/2010 10:24 AM, Diego Novillo wrote: > >>> I'll defer to our build maintainers to review this, but after this >>> goes in could we make --enable-build-with-cxx the default? >> >> I implied doing this for next stage 1. > > It's definitely time to do this. We've debated it for years, reached a > consensus (not without some dissent, but a consensus none-the-less). > So, in GCC 4.6, Stage 1, let's flip the switch; the obvious patch is > pre-approved. Btw., I suggested earlier that an intermediate step to not break C++ build and to excercise the various problems with installing and testing with C++ built GCC without at the same time requiring a C++ host compiler would be to build stage1 with a C compiler and stage2 and stage3 with GCC as C++ compiler. That will also keep us stay in the C/C++ intersection until a useful use of C++ comes up (one might argue that building stage1 with C++ and stage2 and stage3 with C avoids regressions because of the use of C++ of course). Richard. > Thank you, > > -- > Mark Mitchell > CodeSourcery > mark@codesourcery.com > (650) 331-3385 x713 >
On 11/15/2010 2:01 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > Btw., I suggested earlier that an intermediate step to not break C++ build > and to excercise the various problems with installing and testing with > C++ built GCC without at the same time requiring a C++ host compiler > would be to build stage1 with a C compiler and stage2 and stage3 with > GCC as C++ compiler. That's a clever idea, but I think we should just bite the bullet. Do you see a need to do it in this way? We're talking about developers of GCC here, not end-users. Thanks,
On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Mark Mitchell <mark@codesourcery.com> wrote: > On 11/15/2010 2:01 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > >> Btw., I suggested earlier that an intermediate step to not break C++ build >> and to excercise the various problems with installing and testing with >> C++ built GCC without at the same time requiring a C++ host compiler >> would be to build stage1 with a C compiler and stage2 and stage3 with >> GCC as C++ compiler. > > That's a clever idea, but I think we should just bite the bullet. Do > you see a need to do it in this way? We're talking about developers of > GCC here, not end-users. I was thinking that keeping the C host compiler would make the switch possible during this stage3 (there were only very recent reports of fails to use other than GCC host C++ compilers). It basically decouples the host compiler issue from all the rest. And it would make sure that for the next few month a bootstrap with C++ is actually possible, so patches for 4.7 could be developed with the possible use of C++ in mind. Thanks, Richard. > Thanks, > > -- > Mark Mitchell > CodeSourcery > mark@codesourcery.com > (650) 331-3385 x713 >
On 11/15/2010 2:39 PM, Richard Guenther wrote: > I was thinking that keeping the C host compiler would make the switch > possible during this stage3 (there were only very recent reports of fails > to use other than GCC host C++ compilers). OK, I think that's plausible -- you're basically suggesting a more aggressive timetable than I was. This is a bit of a stretch for Stage 3, but we could try it, and fall back if it blows up. Thanks,
Index: configure.ac =================================================================== --- configure.ac (revision 166441) +++ configure.ac (working copy) @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ AC_PROG_CC AC_PROG_CXX AC_PROG_RANLIB +AC_USE_SYSTEM_EXTENSIONS AC_SYS_LARGEFILE # See if we are building gcc with C++. @@ -58,18 +59,8 @@ fi AC_HEADER_TIME ACX_HEADER_STRING -# AC_CHECK_HEADERS is repeated to work around apparent autoconf 2.59 bug. If -# AC_CHECK_HEADERS comes after the if clause, the last AC_LANG call gets used, -# no matter which branch is taken. -if test "$ENABLE_BUILD_WITH_CXX" = "no"; then - AC_LANG(C) - AC_CHECK_HEADERS(locale.h fcntl.h limits.h stddef.h \ +AC_CHECK_HEADERS(locale.h fcntl.h limits.h stddef.h \ stdlib.h strings.h string.h sys/file.h unistd.h) -else - AC_LANG(C++) - AC_CHECK_HEADERS(locale.h fcntl.h limits.h stddef.h \ - stdlib.h strings.h string.h sys/stat.h sys/file.h unistd.h) -fi # Checks for typedefs, structures, and compiler characteristics. AC_C_BIGENDIAN