I think that's it. libgcc @6.x can service all the gccs from about 4.7 to 6.x, so there is only one.
Too bad we need a new version for gcc7. More complexity, more complications. But that's progress. Hopefully the broken gcc7 build on older systems can be remedied. Ken On 2017-06-30, at 7:33 AM, Michael Dickens wrote: > I'm new to the *GCC* ports, so I don't know why libgcc# is not matched > with gcc#. Seems like it would be possible to install libgcc# into > $prefix/lib/libgcc#/ , so that one could have all of the various gcc#'s > installed at the same time without conflicting. But, then I've never > tried & this certainly could make issues with linking / runtime making > sure the correct library is used. And, there's also the redundancy > issues, for if gcc[4-6] can use the same libgcc then why install a new > one for each? I was going to try this route, leaving "libgcc" to be for > gcc[4-6] and then matching libgcc7 with gcc7 and libgcc8 with gcc8, as > well as installing into separate directories to see if that worked. I > might still give this a go since it's mostly just time waiting for *gcc* > to build. Sorry I can't give better answers! Maybe Ryan knows better? - > MLD > > On Fri, Jun 30, 2017, at 10:24 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Is there some reason that the libgcc ports are not named liked the gcc >> ports? >> In particular, shouldn't there be a libgcc6, libgcc7 and a new libgcc8 port?
