On May 6, 2016 12:26 PM, "Douglas R. Reno" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On May 6, 2016 11:22 AM, "Pierre Labastie" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 06/05/2016 17:11, Douglas R. Reno wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On May 6, 2016 9:43 AM, "Pierre Labastie" <[email protected] <mailto:[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? > >> > > YIt is on an LFS-7.9 system (so built with gcc-5) and gcc-6 installed as per BLFS book instructions. You are right that it may make a difference. I am currently building LFS-SVN-20160503 to have a cleaner system. > > > I am starting a new build on one of my dev systems with pure GCC6 (not my workstation) to start tagging things in systemd, and I will add the GCC6_checked tag (but I need to get all outstanding merges done first). > > I am going to avoid Qt4 this time, and attempt to have Qt5 get used as much as possible. Hopefully this will help. > > I have security patches to make for libxml2 and GCC (libiberty). I will work on those later. > > >> > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > Agreed with Bruce that only one entity would be enough. As of the future version, I do not really care. If making a major version change, we could take the opportunity to add some new features (gold, ISL...). GCC6's configure sends warnings about ISL missing. > > > > > Adding those new features sounds interesting. Once things settle down again, I will be happy to look into it. > > Douglas R. Reno *Reworded sentence above to prevent confusion.
-- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
