In message <603bbdcf52.martin@blueyonder.co.uk> you wrote:
> At present I'm slowly working through ROOL's ARMv6/v7 compatibility list
> and trying to turn it into something which can really be relied on, with
> cooperation from software authors wherever possible.
>
> http://www.riscosopen.org/wiki/documentation/show/ARMv6%2Fv7%20software%20compatibility%20list
>
> [...]
> There are two grades of 'compatible' - 'Seems OK', which means nobody's
> made it go wrong yet, and the 'ARMv7 OK' logo, which carries the
> explicit endorsement of its developers.
As far as I know, the latest official GCCSDK version released (4.1.2 Rel 1)
is 'ARMv7 OK', i.e. "The program is believed to be compatible with ARMv6/v7
by the person responsible for providing the newest version (whether official
or unofficial). (This doesn't necessarily imply continuing support.)"
Note this is about using the GCC compiler on ARMv7 RISC OS machine. Most
probably people want to know whether that compiler can also be used to
produce ARMv7 compatible programs. Again, as far as I know, that's the
case as well.
> The problem with collaborative projects like GCC (currently marked
> 'Seems OK') is that it's difficult to know who to ask, or indeed if
> there is anybody to ask. (The response I got from the NetSurf team was
> that "you have just as much right as anyone else to declare it
> compatible".) Hence this post.
BTW, all GCCSDK and Autobuilder communication happens best via its mailing
list mentioned at gccsdk.riscos.info. So you did the right thing. :-)
> Even more thorny than the issue of compatibility is the question of
> support, as it effectively carries a guarantee that the maintainer(s)
> of a given piece of software will be willing to fix any problems
> discovered for the forseeable future.
Speaking for myself but I'm not giving any guarantee nor warranty for
GCCSDK releases (like mentioned in !GCC/docs/index.html, see "Licenses
and warranty" topic, and what "gcc --version" says).
On the other hand, I believe our trackrecord shows we've been willing
to fix any problems and/or accept/consider all patches supplied for
fixing and enhancing GCCSDK. And this for, ahem, 10+ years.
But again, not guarantee nor warranty.
> As this is quite a commitment, I
> always make sure to ask the person responsible for providing such
> support for permission before marking their software as 'Supported'.
> Again, I have no idea who that may be - or even if the only support that
> can be guaranteed is the lesser grade of 'Source Available', meaning
> that if something's wrong, you'll probably have to fix it yourself.
>
> So, from someone who feels qualified to answer, would it be OK to change
> GCC's status to 'ARMv7 OK' and 'Supported'?
My believe this is a reasonable change.
> Also, which is the earliest version of GCC which is ARMv7 compatible?
Go for 4.1.2 Release 1. I'm sure earlier versions of the compiler itself
where ok but I don't see the value of spending time figuring that out.
> And finally, since I'm not sure where the best place to ask about this
> is either, what's the status of the riscos.info packages of ported
> software, such as wget, DosBox, etc.? Are they compatible, are they
> supported? Is there any way of finding out for a given package who's
> responsible for fixing the software?
Cfr. Theo's answer. He's doing a great job atm. :-)
John.
--
John Tytgat, in his comfy chair at home BASS
John.Tytgat@aaug.net ARM powered, RISC OS driven
_______________________________________________
GCCSDK mailing list gcc@gccsdk.riscos.info
Bugzilla: http://www.riscos.info/bugzilla/index.cgi
List Info: http://www.riscos.info/mailman/listinfo/gcc
Main Page: http://www.riscos.info/index.php/GCCSDK
No comments:
Post a Comment