[bug-gnu-libiconv] Re: Unable to build libiconv 1.13.1 on OpenSolaris

[Dr. David Kirkby]

On 05/23/10 01:34 AM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
> > I'll try another gcc version.
> >
> > What I find a bit annoying sometimes is that it is far from rare to find one has
> > to use one version of gcc to build a bit of code, only to find that version will
> > not build another bit of code. So one has to use different versions to build
> > different bits of code.  GCC is not as well tested on Solaris as it is on Linux.
>
> You and others can help by submitting GCC bug reports in those cases where you
> can isolate a malfunction in GCC to a single small fine. But you cannot expect
> an answer when you say "iconv does not build, gives this and that link error".
> You have to reduce to a case where you can pinpoint "for this single file,
> gcc fails to emit a .globl directive for symbol X". Then your bug report will be
> heard.
>
> Bruno

I was aware of this, but my previous experience with several of the gcc 
developers has been less than positive.

I find some of the gcc development decisions absurd. 11 years after the C99 
standard was ratified, gcc still does not fully support the standard.

http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html

Yet during that time, there have been numerous GNU-specific extensions, a 
framwork for making plugins, but the more basic thing, like a fully functional C 
compiler, are not completed.

I can not understand the logic for the default mode of compilation being some 
GNU dialect of C

http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.5.0/gcc/C-Dialect-Options.html#C-Dialect-Options

`gnu89'
    GNU dialect of ISO C90 (including some C99 features). This is the default 
for C code.


When (if?) C99 is fully supported, there will be another set of GNUisms, as once 
again the default will be to enable GNU-specific features which are not part of 
the language standard.

`gnu99'
`gnu9x'
    GNU dialect of ISO C99. When ISO C99 is fully implemented in GCC, this will 
become the default. The name `gnu9x' is deprecated.

Of course I'm aware of options like -pedantic and -ansi, but the fact is most 
people distribute code without checking it with such options.

I've submitted several bug reports over the years about gcc and rarely had much 
luck. I'm told /usr/local is "a standard" so I can expect problems if I chose 
not to install things in /usr/local.

One bug in particular, where gcc builds the stage one compiler, but fails to 
build stage 2, has hit many people on Solaris. But despite numerous reports of 
this, the GCC developers refuse to acknowledge it as a bug. But it has caught 
out so many people, one might hope they would try to resolve it.

Dave