current status then is we have a proposal to restrict available compilers on systems < 10.6 to
gcc48, gcc5, gcc6, gcc7, gcc10, and gcc14 This list seems workably short. I’ll leave this sit for a while while we see if anyone has more to say about it or thinks of some reason why something should be adjusted. I would continue to prefer the list be macports-wide, even if that means gcc13 instead of gcc10, or if one more gcc needs to be added. But we won’t bring down progress on the older systems arguing about that if that will be a sticking point. > On Nov 20, 2024, at 09:33, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >>> On Nov 20, 2024, at 06:35, Sergio Had <vital....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> On Nov 20, 2024 at 22:22 +0800, Ken Cunningham >> <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>, wrote: >> Any concrete example of something gcc-14 breaks that gcc-13 builds? >> >> A lot in fact, but for a reason orthogonal to toolchain as such. > > Well, if there is “a lot” that won’t build with gcc-14, that certainly > cements the idea it had better not be the only working compiler in macports > on older systems. > > So that puts that argument to rest. > > >> >> gcc14 became stricter with warnings vs errors, so either all affected ports’ >> code has to be fixed (in practice this usually translates into “fixed by who >> builds those with gcc”, i.e. typically myself), which requires hours and >> hours, or folks with “veto rights” should not prevent at least fixing these >> ports by adding a `-Wno-error=` flag (which is done in numerous ports for >> clangs, but for gcc it every time turns into an argument). >> >> Other than that no, I believe, and neither gcc7 can build something which >> gcc14 cannot (and which is actually needed).
