|
2440
|
1 <HTML>
|
|
|
2 <BODY BGCOLOR=WHITE>
|
|
2441
|
3 <FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2>
|
|
|
4
|
|
|
5 <P>
|
|
|
6 <B>Question:</B> What is GCC 2.96 ? I can't find it at GNU site.
|
|
|
7 </P>
|
|
|
8
|
|
|
9 <P>
|
|
|
10 <B>Answer:</B> Read the <A HREF="http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html">official answer from GNU GCC team.</A>
|
|
|
11 </P>
|
|
2440
|
12
|
|
|
13 <P>
|
|
|
14 <B>Question:</B> What is the problem with GCC 2.96 ? And with 3.x ?
|
|
|
15 </P>
|
|
|
16
|
|
|
17 <P>
|
|
|
18 <B>Answer:</B>
|
|
|
19 </P>
|
|
|
20
|
|
|
21 <P>
|
|
|
22 And for the people, who periodically asks what are the exact problems with
|
|
2441
|
23 gcc 2.96, my answer: <I>we don't know exactly.</I>
|
|
|
24 There were various problems and new problems / bugs come up periodically.
|
|
|
25 It is <I>not a single bug/problem</I>. We just see various bugreports, mostly
|
|
2440
|
26 gcc internal bugs, compiler syntax errors in source or bad code compiled. They
|
|
|
27 all are solved using different version of gcc. I understand that gcc 2.96
|
|
|
28 has different default optimization flags and they conflicts with our inline
|
|
|
29 asm code, but we can't fix them, and we really don't want to fix them as they
|
|
|
30 work with other compilers or gcc versions, and the fix may cause speed loss.
|
|
|
31 </P>
|
|
|
32
|
|
|
33 <P>
|
|
|
34 I think that the gcc 2.96 should be fixed to be option-compatible with other
|
|
|
35 releases, but redhat guys refused to do it. If someone interested - ask
|
|
|
36 Eugene K., avifile author, he has a long mailing with them, because they had
|
|
|
37 the same problems with avifile. Finally he changed avifile source to
|
|
|
38 <I>workaround</I> gcc 2.96 bugs...
|
|
|
39 We simply has no interest and time to do it.
|
|
|
40 </P>
|
|
|
41
|
|
|
42 <P>
|
|
|
43 Ah, and about the pipe-in-comment bug: it wasn't really our bug.
|
|
|
44 I've talked one of gcc maintainers, and he told me that gcc 2.96 and 3.x
|
|
|
45 supports intel asm syntax, and it caused the pipe bug. But it was a bug,
|
|
|
46 because gcc silently, without any warning, ignored the whole asm block.
|
|
2441
|
47 <I>They</I> have fixed that, now it prints warning and doesn't skip the block.
|
|
2440
|
48 (at least he told me, i didn't checked)
|
|
|
49 </P>
|
|
|
50
|
|
|
51 <P>
|
|
|
52 Other gcc 3.x problems comes from broken libstdc++ or glibc header (std_*.h)
|
|
|
53 installation. They are not our fault. MPlayer compiles and works well with
|
|
|
54 gcc 3.x versions. <B>Only 2.96 is broken</B>, but it depends on many environment
|
|
|
55 elements, including gcc 2.96 release number, enabled mplayer features, etc.
|
|
|
56 <I>If it works for you using gcc 2.96, it doesn't mean it will work for everyone.</I>
|
|
|
57 </P>
|
|
|
58
|
|
2441
|
59 <P>
|
|
|
60 <B>Question:</B> No! You are wrong! Everything works with gcc 2.96 <I>but</I> MPlayer
|
|
|
61 </P>
|
|
|
62
|
|
|
63 <P>
|
|
|
64 <B>Answer:</B>
|
|
|
65 </P>
|
|
|
66
|
|
|
67 <P>
|
|
|
68 No. You are wrong!
|
|
|
69 Several projects (mainly which source contains high optimized inline asm code)
|
|
|
70 had problems with gcc 2.96. For example: avifile, MESA / DRI, ffmpeg.
|
|
|
71 But other projects already workarounded gcc bugs (changed code which
|
|
|
72 triggered compiler bugs) so they work for now.
|
|
|
73 </P>
|
|
|
74
|
|
|
75 <P>
|
|
|
76 <B>Question:</B> No! You are wrong! Everything works with gcc 2.96 <I>including</I> MPlayer
|
|
|
77 </P>
|
|
|
78
|
|
|
79 <P>
|
|
|
80 <B>Answer:</B>
|
|
|
81 </P>
|
|
|
82
|
|
|
83 Good. Be happy. But you must know, it depends on many environment
|
|
|
84 elements, including gcc 2.96 release number, enabled mplayer features, etc.
|
|
|
85 <I>If it works for you using gcc 2.96, it doesn't mean it will work for everyone!</I>
|
|
|
86 It only means that you are lucky, until you find a problem. But don't forget the
|
|
|
87 <B>No.1 rule of gcc 2.96 users: NEVER REPORT BUGS OR PROBLEMS IF YOU ARE USING GCC 2.96</B>
|
|
|
88
|
|
|
89 <P>
|
|
|
90 <B>Question:</B> Ok. Understood. But I want to give it a try... how to compile with gcc 2.96?
|
|
|
91 </P>
|
|
|
92
|
|
|
93 <P>
|
|
|
94 <B>Answer:</B> Really? Are you sure? Ok. You know... here is it: ./configure --disable-gcc-checking
|
|
|
95 </P>
|
|
|
96
|
|
|
97 <P>
|
|
|
98 <B>Question:</B> No! I don't agree with you, because ...
|
|
|
99 </P>
|
|
|
100
|
|
|
101 <P>
|
|
|
102 <B>Answer:</B> It doesn't matter. Keep your commets for yourself. We're not interested in gcc 2.96 stories.
|
|
|
103 </P>
|
|
|
104
|
|
|
105
|
|
|
106 </FONT>
|
|
2440
|
107 </BODY>
|
|
|
108 </HTML>
|
