CVS: main/DOCS gcc-2.96-3.0.html,1.1,1.2
Update of /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS In directory mplayer:/var/tmp.root/cvs-serv32373 Modified Files: gcc-2.96-3.0.html Log Message: htmlize, added new things Index: gcc-2.96-3.0.html =================================================================== RCS file: /cvsroot/mplayer/main/DOCS/gcc-2.96-3.0.html,v retrieving revision 1.1 retrieving revision 1.2 diff -u -r1.1 -r1.2 --- gcc-2.96-3.0.html 24 Oct 2001 02:26:49 -0000 1.1 +++ gcc-2.96-3.0.html 24 Oct 2001 02:55:08 -0000 1.2 @@ -1,5 +1,14 @@ <HTML> <BODY BGCOLOR=WHITE> +<FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=2> + +<P> +<B>Question:</B> What is GCC 2.96 ? I can't find it at GNU site. +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> Read the <A HREF="http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html">official answer from GNU GCC team.</A> +</P> <P> <B>Question:</B> What is the problem with GCC 2.96 ? And with 3.x ? @@ -11,7 +20,9 @@ <P> And for the people, who periodically asks what are the exact problems with -gcc 2.96, my answer: <I>we don't know.</I> We just see various bugreports mostly +gcc 2.96, my answer: <I>we don't know exactly.</I> +There were various problems and new problems / bugs come up periodically. +It is <I>not a single bug/problem</I>. We just see various bugreports, mostly gcc internal bugs, compiler syntax errors in source or bad code compiled. They all are solved using different version of gcc. I understand that gcc 2.96 has different default optimization flags and they conflicts with our inline @@ -33,7 +44,7 @@ I've talked one of gcc maintainers, and he told me that gcc 2.96 and 3.x supports intel asm syntax, and it caused the pipe bug. But it was a bug, because gcc silently, without any warning, ignored the whole asm block. -*They* have fixed that, now it prints warning and doesn't skip the block. +<I>They</I> have fixed that, now it prints warning and doesn't skip the block. (at least he told me, i didn't checked) </P> @@ -45,5 +56,53 @@ <I>If it works for you using gcc 2.96, it doesn't mean it will work for everyone.</I> </P> +<P> +<B>Question:</B> No! You are wrong! Everything works with gcc 2.96 <I>but</I> MPlayer +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> +</P> + +<P> +No. You are wrong! +Several projects (mainly which source contains high optimized inline asm code) +had problems with gcc 2.96. For example: avifile, MESA / DRI, ffmpeg. +But other projects already workarounded gcc bugs (changed code which +triggered compiler bugs) so they work for now. +</P> + +<P> +<B>Question:</B> No! You are wrong! Everything works with gcc 2.96 <I>including</I> MPlayer +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> +</P> + +Good. Be happy. But you must know, it depends on many environment +elements, including gcc 2.96 release number, enabled mplayer features, etc. +<I>If it works for you using gcc 2.96, it doesn't mean it will work for everyone!</I> +It only means that you are lucky, until you find a problem. But don't forget the +<B>No.1 rule of gcc 2.96 users: NEVER REPORT BUGS OR PROBLEMS IF YOU ARE USING GCC 2.96</B> + +<P> +<B>Question:</B> Ok. Understood. But I want to give it a try... how to compile with gcc 2.96? +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> Really? Are you sure? Ok. You know... here is it: ./configure --disable-gcc-checking +</P> + +<P> +<B>Question:</B> No! I don't agree with you, because ... +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> It doesn't matter. Keep your commets for yourself. We're not interested in gcc 2.96 stories. +</P> + + +</FONT> </BODY> </HTML>
participants (1)
-
Arpi of Ize