[CLN-list] CLN 1.2.0

[Richard B. Kreckel]

Hi!

Joerg Arndt wrote:
> * Richard B. Kreckel <kreckel at ginac.de> [Jan 22. 2008 13:07]:
>> What reasons in that other mail explain why CLN or GiNaC were or are a 
>> maintenance nightmare? They compile out of the box using GCC, they pass 
>> make check, install cleanly and generally work. If not, why not send a bug 
>> report?
>>
>> I hope you don't mean failing to compile with -W -Wall -Wconversion 
>> -Wsign-promo -Wsign-compare -Wunused -Wshadow -Wundef -Werror.
> 
> No, IIRC the issues were with strict aliasing (and, IIRC(2)
> something with initialization order, I think we had a discussion
> back then).  The compiler messages often left me clueless and
> only the compiler people could point me to the underlying issues.
> 
> IIRC(3) the itanium arch was the worst and IIRC(4) we tagged
> CLN etc as DOES_NOT_BUILD on the arch because nobody was much
> interested in fixing there.

Well, that is long ago and I can assure that all those issues have long 
been fixed. Alexei already pointed to the Debian build log and if you 
browse through it, you'll see that it actually executes make check. 
Also, I've used CLN personally on Itanic machines.

In 2001/2002, some nice folks at SuSE helped with little patches and, 
sometimes, even with access to non-mainstream machines. But in 2004, I 
got some broken patches for old versions of CLN that fixed issues that 
had long been fixed in my official releases. Apparently, somebody 
unexperienced there had tried to do some wild fixing. But, as I said, 
those issues have been resolved.

Cheers
   -richy.
-- 
Richard B. Kreckel
<http://www.ginac.de/~kreckel/>