sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Ladislav Hagara <ladislav.hagara AT unob.cz>
- Cc: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1
- Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:15:56 +0100
>
> > 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.
>
Personally I wonder why we discuss this. Test grimoire is for testing.
GCC 4.1 has should been in test grimoire since GCC team had released it.
It is strange for me that for example openSUSE has gcc 4.1.3 [1] and we
have in test and stable-rc gcc 4.0.3 and in stable even gcc 3.4.5 [2].
[1] http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=suse
[2] http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=sourcemage
> > 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.
>
What about some sorcery function and variable like IGNORE_GCC_VERSION?
With this setting sorcery could just ignore GCC from DETAILS and tried
the last gcc.
If last gcc was OK sorcery just write some message like "spell XXX
contains GCC=3.4 but it is possible to cast it with last gcc 4.1,
GCC=3.4 should be removed from DETAILS". Of course if last GCC fails
sorcery just tried older one.
--
Ladislav Hagara
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Jeremy A. Kolb, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Thomas Orgis, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/05/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Flavien Bridault, 12/08/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Daniel Goller, 12/09/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Pieter Lenaerts, 12/09/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Flavien Bridault, 12/09/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Daniel Goller, 12/09/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Pieter Lenaerts, 12/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Daniel Goller, 12/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Ladislav Hagara, 12/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, seth, 12/10/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Ladislav Hagara, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Daniel Goller, 12/11/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Ladislav Hagara, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Andrew Stitt, 12/18/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Eric Sandall, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, Juuso Alasuutari, 12/20/2006
- Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1, David Kowis, 12/20/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Daniel Goller, 12/09/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Flavien Bridault, 12/08/2006
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] Status of gcc 4.1,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 12/05/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.