Re: preparing for GCC 4.9 (bug squashing on May 16/17)
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 02:56:39PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> With gcc-4.9 now available in testing, it is time to prepare for the change of
> the default to 4.9, for a subset of architectures or for all (release)
> architectures. The defaults for the gdc, gccgo, gcj and gnat frontends already
> point to 4.9 and are used on all architectures. Issue #746805 tracks the
> gfortran default change, including the change of the Fortran 90 module version.
>
> An email a week ago to debian-{release,ports} [1] didn't show any obvious
> blockers, and various test rebuilds don't show at least any internal compiler
> errors anymore.
>
> The Debian archive was rebuilt twice on amd64, once in February, resulting in
> bug submissions for GCC and feedback for the porting guide [2], a second time in
> March to file issues for packages failing to build with GCC 4.9 [3]. Another
> test rebuild for mips64 didn't show any additional build failures [4]. Another
> test rebuild for Ubuntu on amd64, i386, armhf, ppc64el didn't show any other
> compiler regressions on these architectures.
>
> I'll work on fixing the build failures in [3], help is of course appreciated.
> Trying to be online on May 16/17 on IRC #debian-toolchain (OFTC) and uploading
> packages to the delayed queue.
>
> Almost all build failures are analysed and should be easy to fix (exceptions
> e.g. #746883). Patches for the ones not caused by the Debian packaging may be
> found in distributions already using GCC 4.9 as the default compiler (e.g.
> Fedora 21).
>
> If anything goes well, and a large amount of build failures are fixed, I plan to
> make GCC 4.9 the default for the C/C++/ObjC/Obj-C++ frontends at the end of May,
> beginning of June.
>
> Bugs reports for packages building with a legacy version of GCC (4.6, 4.7) are
> filed [5] [6], and will be filed for 4.8 once 4.9 is the default.
There is a gcc 4.8.2 bug that currently prevents iceweasel 29 to build
on armhf, and it appears this bug is fixed in 4.9. Is it fine to build
depend on 4.9?
Mike
Reply to: