On May 6, 2016 9:43 AM, "Pierre Labastie" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > It looks like GCC 6 adds a level of rigor to C/C++ compiling, and that code which used to work, does not anymore because it relied on not rigorously defined behavior. > > I guess this is the case for a lot of packages in BLFS. I already have found (sorry if some of these have been mentionned already, I do not have a way to search the mail archives ATM): > harbuzz: may be built with: CC="gcc -std=c99" CXX="g++ -std=c++98" ./configure... > php: may be built with: CC="gcc -std=c99" ./configure... > libsoup: same > xorg-evdev-driver: same > libdrm: same > gstreamer: same > gstreamer-plgins-base: same (not tried the other plugins, but I guess they need the same) > openjdk: fix not ready yet
Were these on an LFS system upgraded to GCC6 or on a fresh build? On my fresh builds, I haven't noticed issues with any of the above (except PHP and OpenJDK, which I haven't built). But that does not mean that they don't exist. Should I upgrade one of my 5.x PCs to 6.x and try compiling my stuff on there? > > Shouldn't we add an entities &gcc6-tested, &gcc6-built and add those to the package descriptions when tested? > I agree that its a good idea. Douglas R. Reno
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
