Re: gcc-3.4 roadmap?
"Harald Dunkel" <harald.dunkel@t-online.de> writes:
> Andreas Jochens wrote:
>> On 04-Aug-26 15:22, Harald Dunkel wrote:
>>
>>>Is there a list of packages in pure64, that have serious problems
>>>if built with gcc-3.4?
>> The attached list of packages from 'sid' has build problems for the
>> amd64/gcc-3.4 archive.
>>
> [snip]
>
> AFAICS these packages don't exist for pure64, either.
> (Except for alsamixergui and celestia. They seem to
> be available for both compilers.)
>
> I would be interested in the list of problems especially
> introduced by using gcc-3.4 instead of 3.3 as the base
> compiler.
>
> If there are none, then I can see no reason for sticking
> with the old gcc.
>
>
> Regards
>
> Harri
The problem are the lots of packages wich need patches to build which
are not part of sid (or sarge).
I want (and I don't think I am the only one there) sarge-amd64 as
close to the real sarge as possible because otherwise doing security
updates will be a nightmare. Switching fully to gcc-3.4 just adds more
differences for maybe some extra speed. I fail to see a great benefit
to counteract the large number of (existing) patches needed for
gcc-3.4.
And if sarge is gcc-3.3 sid needs an upgrade path to gcc-3.4. People
have reported incompatibilities when mixing the two (for c++ binaries)
and that has to be handled cleanly so people can upgrade safely.
MfG
Goswin
Reply to: