[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: GCC-4.5 as the default for (at least some) architectures

On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 05:03:01PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> On 04/17/2011 09:33 PM, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> >On Wed, 2011-03-02 at 02:34 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> >>I'll make gcc-4.5 the default for (at least some) architectures within the next
> >>two weeks before more transitions start.  GCC-4.5 is already used as the default
> >>compiler for almost any other distribution, so there shouldn't be many surprises
> >>on at least the common architectures.  About 50% of the build failures exposed
> >>by GCC-4.5 are fixed [1].  I didn't see issues on amd64 and i386, armel
> >>(although optimized for a different processor) and powerpc (some object files
> >>linked into shared libs had to be built as pic).
> >
> >It looks like kfreebsd-* also made the switch and there's been a request
> >to switch for mips and mipsel.
> >
> >Looking through the bug list for src:gcc-4.5, none of the open issues
> >seem to be specific to the remaining release architectures which haven't
> >switched yet - i.e. ia64, s390 and sparc.  Are you aware of any issues
> >which would preclude switching the default on those architectures?  Has
> >there been any discussion with the port maintainers regarding switching?
> At this point, pretty well after the GCC 4.6.0 release, I would like
> to avoid switching more architectures to 4.5, but rather get rid of
> GCC 4.5 to reduce maintenance efforts on the debian-gcc side, even
> before the multiarch changes go into unstable. I'll make GCC 4.6 the
> default after the release of GCC 4.5.3, expected later this week, at
> least on amd64, armel, i386 and powerpc.  GCC 4.6 apparently will be

If you do the switch, please also add mips and mipsel, that would avoid
you to have to complain in two weeks that these architectures have not
yet been switched.

Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net

Reply to: