Hi, everybody!
I just found this in gnu.misc.discuss (*not* in gnu.announce/gnu.gcc.announc):
From: Paul Eggert eggert@twinsun.com Subject: gcc 2.8.0, libstdc++ 2.8.0 released Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/gcc-2.8.0.tar.gz ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/libstdc++-2.8.0.tar.gz
More details and an official announcement will appear soon. Please send bug reports for GNU C to `bug-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu'. Please send bug reports for GNU C++ to `bug-g++@prep.ai.mit.edu'.
Even if this was not the official release of gcc-2.8.0, I suggest to let gpc-2.1 follow as soon as possible even if not all bugs are fixed.
My current development GPC passes all PVS conformance tests for ISO-7185 Standard Pascal level 0 and (NEW!) level 1 but two minor ones. My idea is to fix these, make the final beta and release gpc-2.1 even if there are some remaining known bugs. (An incomplete list of those bugs that have prevented me from releasing gpc-2.1 up to now follows below.)
Of course, this plan implies that we must upgrade from gcc-2.7.2.x to gcc-2.8.0 ASAP. I think it is reasonable to continue support for gcc-2.7.2.x as long as this works without too much effort.
Any comments?
Peter -- Peter Gerwinski, Essen, Germany, free physicist and programmer Maintainer GNU Pascal - http://home.pages.de/~GNU-Pascal/ - 1 Oct 1997 PGP key fingerprint: AC 6C 94 45 BE 28 A4 96 0E CC E9 12 47 25 82 75 Fight the SPAM! - http://maps.vix.com/
8< ---- remaining bugs in current GPC ---------------------------------------
The two ISO-7185-related bugs I want to fix before releaseing gpc-2.1:
* GPC barfs on type checking with Boolean values in `case' statements.
* Nested packed conformant arrays do not yet work in all cases.
Major bugs I am planning to postpone (unless, of course, I have an idea how to fix them without too much effort;-)-:
* The "AutoMake" mechanism needs a complete rewrite. It's too slow and does not always decide correctly whether something must be recompiled or not.
* GPC still fails some (few) ISO conformance tests when compiled with optimization on the DEC Alpha.
* `Seek' and `SeekRead' etc. do not yet work in all situations (frank95b.pas).
* Comparisons of integers of different size sometimes fail (frank118.pas).
* String `Var' parameters accept constant values (frank123.pas).
* "Procedure Foo ( x: String )" has in fact a `Var' parameter (frank125.pas).
* `New' on pointers to discriminated strings doesn't work (frank128.pas).
* There is no `--uses="System"' option for full BP compatibility yet.
* The `--field-width' switch does not handle `LongInt's etc.
* Inside `New', all methods of an object become visible and may cause name clashes.
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Peter Gerwinski wrote:
ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/gcc-2.8.0.tar.gz ftp://prep.ai.mit.edu/pub/gnu/libstdc++-2.8.0.tar.gz
Even if this was not the official release of gcc-2.8.0, I suggest to let gpc-2.1 follow as soon as possible even if not all bugs are fixed. ... Of course, this plan implies that we must upgrade from gcc-2.7.2.x to gcc-2.8.0 ASAP. I think it is reasonable to continue support for gcc-2.7.2.x as long as this works without too much effort.
That's what they want us to think.. It's a trap!!! Just kidding =B) I read in either Dr Dobbs Journal or C/C++ User's Journal that a standard has finally been set for C++, so 2.8.0 *might* be in response to that (just a guess, don't take for a fact that it's the reason 2.8.0 is mentioned). As for whether or not GPC will work without modifications (if 2.8.0 is in response to the C++ standardization), as long as GPC doesn't use C++ it should be backwards compatible with 2.7.x
See ya! Orlando Llanes
"Hey, we all did the drug thing, we all did the money thing, and eventually you find out that none of that stuff fixes anything, and we have nowhere else to go except to evolve spiritually and intellectually" -- Meredith Brooks
"Look out fo' flyeeng feet" O__/ a010111t@bc.seflin.org /|____. O <__. /> / \ ____________|_________ http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/Monkey414
On Sat, 17 Jan 1998, Orlando Llanes wrote:
That's what they want us to think.. It's a trap!!! Just kidding =B) Iread in either Dr Dobbs Journal or C/C++ User's Journal that a standard has finally been set for C++, so 2.8.0 *might* be in response to that (just a guess, don't take for a fact that it's the reason 2.8.0 is mentioned).
This C++ standard was released in november or december last year; it takes slightly more time to develop a new compiler release. In fact, it took ~2 years since the last major release (2.7.0)
As for whether or not GPC will work without modifications (if 2.8.0 is in response to the C++ standardization), as long as GPC doesn't use C++ it should be backwards compatible with 2.7.x
Things are slightly more complicated. GPC hooks into GCC internals, and this interface *did* change. Then, a number of GPC files (gpc-*.c) are modified versions of their GCC counterparts (c-*.c), they have to be upgraded too. Finally, after such a severe modification of a large source base such as GCC+GPC, it takes some time before things stabilize.
But we must upgrade sooner or later, so we might just as well do it now.
JanJaap
--- With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea. It is hard to be sure where they are going to land, and it could be dangerous sitting under them as they fly overhead. -- RFC1925.
-
Jan-Jaap van der Heijden -
Orlando Llanes -
Peter Gerwinski