Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

sm-discuss - Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1

sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Daniel Goller <dgoller AT satx.rr.com>
  • To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1
  • Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 15:34:36 -0600

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:02:52 +0100
Flavien Bridault <vlaaad AT sourcemage.org> wrote:

> Le samedi 09 décembre 2006 à 19:56 +0100, Pieter Lenaerts a écrit :
> > 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.)
>
> This anyway what spell maintainers are supposed to do since the
> beginning, right ??
>

I guess not, if i see how Pieter replied. :/


> > > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > SM-Discuss mailing list
> > SM-Discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/sm-discuss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFeyvy+HaycIPdpbkRAnTYAJ4ohX3E7KnP+Io30aSAHEuMG5zKRACfTF8Q
heZbFsOK2HczE9ILen/ObVA=
=W4so
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page