David Haller <[email protected]> writes: > Hello, > > On Tue, 29 Dec 2015, lee wrote: >>Andrew Savchenko <[email protected]> writes: >>> There will be no 5.3.1 likely. Numeration scheme is changed from 5.x >>> series: what was middle version is now major, what was minor is now >>> middle. So 5.3 is a patch version of 5.0 the same as 4.9.3 is a >>> patch version of 4.9.0. >> >>What do you currently get as default when you update, and can you easily >>go back to a previous version, or have several versions installed and >>switch between them? > > I'd guess 4.9.3. And yes and yes. > > # eix sys-devel/gcc > [I] sys-devel/gcc > Available versions: > (2.95.3) ~2.95.3-r10^s > (3.3.6) (~)3.3.6-r1^s > (3.4.6) 3.4.6-r2^s > (4.0.4) **4.0.4^s > (4.1.2) 4.1.2^s > (4.2.4) (~)4.2.4-r1^s > (4.3.6) 4.3.6-r1^s > (4.4.7) 4.4.7^s > (4.5.4) 4.5.4^s > (4.6.4) 4.6.4^s > (4.7) 4.7.4^s > (4.8) (~)4.8.0^s (~)4.8.1-r1^s (~)4.8.2^s 4.8.3^s 4.8.4^s 4.8.5^s > (4.9) ~*4.9.0^s ~*4.9.1^s (~)4.9.2^s 4.9.3^s{tbz2} > (5) **5.1.0^s **5.2.0^s (~)5.3.0^s{tbz2} > [..] > Installed versions: 4.9.3(4.9)^s{tbz2}[..] > 5.3.0(5)^s{tbz2}[..] > [..] > > # gcc-config -l > [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.9.3 * > [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-5.3.0 > > Basically, you can install one of each slot, i.e. the first column in > () of the eix output. From (2.95.3) to (5). And switch as you like. > > As 4.9.3 is marked stable, I guess that's what'd you get per default.
4.8.5 I'd have to run emerge --sync to know about more recent versions. How is that supposed to be used, btw? I only run that when I do want to update everything. Now if I didn't want to update anything but gcc, could I run emerge --sync and install gcc 5.x without having trouble with anything else I might install before actually updating everything? So if I'd never explicitly update everything but run emerge --sync frequently, things would be updated over time, occasionally? > Stuff compiled with older gcc's should run with newer libgcc*[0], but > stuff compililed with a newer gcc might not run with the older > libgcc*. Same goes, with more problems IIRC, for libstdc++. > So beware of that. Apart from that? I'm not aware of problems. Uhm ... So I might break the system by switching between compiler versions? I have an application which I would like to compile with gcc 5.x just to see if that's even possible. I could switch, try it, and then switch back. > BTW: why is gcc not also handled via eselect? Even if that'd just > call gcc-config? What about ccache? How's that handled when you have multiple versions of gcc installed? > HTH, > -dnh > > [0] e.g. old Loki games, probably compiled with 2.95.x or even older > still run fine on a system built with gcc-4.6 If they were 64bit ... Too bad that there basically aren't any games anymore.
