On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 09:57:25PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > On Oct 4, 2009, at 20:10, Jack Howarth wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 07:50:16PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >>> On Oct 4, 2009, at 17:46, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>>> Last I checked gcc42 still wouldn't build, but perhaps r57804 fixed >>>> that. I will try again now. >>> >>> Ok, gcc42 still doesn't build for me and at least one other person on >>> Snow Leopard; see: >>> >>> http://trac.macports.org/ticket/21665 >> >> It shouldn't come as a surprise as the patches I submitted for >> FSF gcc only went into gcc trunk for gcc 4.4 and later... >> >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00333.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00428.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00811.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01515.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg01532.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00054.html >> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-12/msg00177.html > > I suggested in my previous message that perhaps your patches had not > been used by MacPorts, since you already said your patches do not work > for gcc43, yet gcc43 was modified to work on Snow Leopard. >
I didn't say that gcc 4.2 couldn't be made to work but that there wasn't much point of doing so (outside of pdftk which is broken because it incorrectly mixes c++ and java exceptions which is no longer permitted in FSF gcc). > >> Considering that gcc 4.2.x is currently depreciated and >> unmaintained by upstream, it is rather pointless to keep >> it when gcc44 works as well across all architectures. >> The only reason Apple is stuck at 4.2.1 is because of >> the GPLv3 licensing issues. > > My motivation for gcc42 at this moment is pdftk which does not compile > with greater than gcc42. > > There are some patches for pdftk from other distributions, though, of > which I have just been made aware, which are supposed to help with this, > which I will attempt to look into and incorporate. > > http://trac.macports.org/ticket/15420 > Yes, the Gentoo patches are more promising than what Fedora uses (which requires an openjdk package). _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
