Public SourceMage Discussion List

[Pieter Lenaerts <e-type AT sourcemage.org>]

Op zaterdag 09-12-2006 om 08:25 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Daniel
Goller:
> Well, considering how often we force gcc3.4 we should not be too proud of 
> being able to use gcc4.1.
> For what it's worth, what hasn't been forced does play fine with gcc4.1, 
> and has done so for months.
> Have nothing to say to glibc2.5, since i haven't touched it.
> 
> We could either remove all the forcing of gcc3.4 first, and then determine 
> which needs 4.1 patches, or test things against 4.0 and 4.1 at the time we 
> do remove the forcing.
> There is nothing wrong with 4.1, some code does trigger a few extra 
> sloppyness indicators that even 4.0 still let's fly, but it's not a lot.
> 
> To make things smoother in the future the forcing of gcc version below what 
> is in test must be discouraged, things do not get fixed that way.
> This way a rebuild working actually has meaning.
> 
> We should move forward with gcc/glibc, and encourage to have the gcc3.4 
> forcing removed next time people touch a spell that does it. (After testing 
> it of course.)
> Upstream might long have fixed what caused the gcc3.4 forcing. If not we 
> find what other distros might long have in place for that package.

I don't agree at all.

It's not our job to fix up code to be ${GCC_VERSION} compatible. gcc34
forcing is perfectly normal iyam.

when gcc 4.1 came in the picture, the question was more if we would need
gcc 4.0 forcing as well as gcc 3.4 forcing.

maybe we took too long to conclude that gcc4.1 does not pose any major
problems, but all in all things went far more smoothly with this gcc
update.

-- 
Pieter Lenaerts
Source Mage GNU/Linux

http://www.sourcemage.org - "Linux so advanced it may well be magic"

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dit berichtdeel is digitaal ondertekend