diff options
| author | gabucino <gabucino@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2001-12-16 11:51:02 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | gabucino <gabucino@b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2> | 2001-12-16 11:51:02 +0000 |
| commit | 80c90e39c69d726dd273cb4e9b07fed27b52d1ef (patch) | |
| tree | ea742c33f690fd4021be367afa3e7717925cc28f /DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html | |
| parent | 81826a314f82a82d80aacba9d215bd0bff0dd422 (diff) | |
| download | mpv-80c90e39c69d726dd273cb4e9b07fed27b52d1ef.tar.bz2 mpv-80c90e39c69d726dd273cb4e9b07fed27b52d1ef.tar.xz | |
began updated translation by <nell@skrzynka.pl> (work-in-progress)
git-svn-id: svn://svn.mplayerhq.hu/mplayer/trunk@3524 b3059339-0415-0410-9bf9-f77b7e298cf2
Diffstat (limited to 'DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html | 111 |
1 files changed, 111 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html b/DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..73cb16534e --- /dev/null +++ b/DOCS/Polish/gcc-2.96-3.0.html @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ +<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 ? +</P> + +<P> +<B>Answer:</B> +</P> + +<P> +And for the people, who periodically asks what are the exact problems with +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 +asm code, but we can't fix them, and we really don't want to fix them as they +work with other compilers or gcc versions, and the fix may cause speed loss. +</P> + +<P> +I think that the gcc 2.96 should be fixed to be option-compatible with other +releases, but redhat guys refused to do it. If someone interested - ask +Eugene K., avifile author, he has a long mailing with them, because they had +the same problems with avifile. Finally he changed avifile source to +<I>workaround</I> gcc 2.96 bugs... +We simply has no interest and time to do it. +</P> + +<P> +Ah, and about the pipe-in-comment bug: it wasn't really our bug. +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 <I>is</I> a bug, +because gcc <I>silently</I>, without any warning, ignored the whole asm block! +</P> + +<P> +Other gcc 3.x problems comes from broken libstdc++ or glibc header (std_*.h) +installation. They are not our fault. MPlayer compiles and works well with +gcc 3.x versions. <B>Only 2.96 is broken</B>, but 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> +</P> + +<P><B>Answer 2:</B></P> + +<P> +Also read <A HREF="users_against_developers.html">this</A> text !!!</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, Wine, ffmpeg, lame. +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> |