Re: GCC 4.2 transition
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:48:32PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Aurelien Jarno (email@example.com) [070720 21:15]:
> > Jurij Smakov a écrit :
> > > On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:16:27AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> > >> The plans for the GCC 4.2 transition were described in
> > >>
> > >> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg00008.html
> > >>
> > >> Does any port still need to stick with GCC 4.1 for a while? Feedback
> > >> from hppa, mips*, s390, powerpc, amd64, i386 porters doesn't show
> > >> objections against the transition.
> > >
> > > According to Bastian Blank, gcc 4.2 currently produces broken sparc
> > > kernel images.
> > >
> > > Another thing which comes to mind: we have recently announced that
> > > sparc32 machines are not going to be supported in lenny. Transition to
> > > the new gcc version seems like a perfect time to turn on the
> > > ultrasparc specific optimizations in gcc by default. Do you think it
> > > is feasible? I currently have no idea what breakage such a change
> > > might cause.
> > We (glibc maintainers) plan to do a change in glibc first. We will drop
> > libc6-sparcv9 and change the optimizations of libc6 to SPARC v9 from
> > SPARC v8.
> > Doing it on the glibc first have the advantage that we can put a check
> > in the preinst script to stop the installation on a SPARC v8 system. As
> > libc6 is installed on all systems, that should prevent system breakages
> > with SIGILL on random packages.
> > This is already implemented in the SVN, and we plan to do the upload on
> > Sunday.
> I hope this doesn't yet include another shlib bump (though it would be
> good if the sparc v9 binaries have one).
Given the current situation wrt the transitions, we won't bump the shlib,
though strictly speaking that should be necessary.
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' firstname.lastname@example.org | email@example.com
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net