Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 8:14 AM David Howells wrote: > Also, the isl package was split out from gcc so that cross-gcc could use it > also, but gcc now seems to be carrying its own isl package of a different > version (0.12.2 rather than 0.16.1). Do we still build with isl support or > could this also be dropped? The sagemath package would like to build with isl support, but needs version 0.12.0 or later. There is a "BuildRequires: pkgconfig(isl)" in sagemath.spec in case the system version is ever updated, but right now the build system rejects it as being too old. -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
I wonder if we should drop the cloog package from Fedora. It was separated from gcc so that both gcc and cross-gcc could use it. However neither of them now do. Also, the isl package was split out from gcc so that cross-gcc could use it also, but gcc now seems to be carrying its own isl package of a different version (0.12.2 rather than 0.16.1). Do we still build with isl support or could this also be dropped? David ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
Dne 03. 01. 23 v 4:30 Kevin Kofler via devel napsal(a): Fabio Valentini wrote: - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) I wish this was specific to Rust. We more or less deal with this issue in every ecosystem. We just sometimes choose to ignore the whole parts of the matrix, e.g. statically/dynamically linked libraries. But also support for some extensions, such as e.g. language bindings and what not. Or maybe platform support. Let me try formulating my criticism more constructively (since my previous reply failed both at being polite and at getting my point through, sorry again for that): I am really surprised to read above that Rust apparently allows applications to pick the flag with which the libraries they depend on are compiled. I really have to wonder why anyone would think that allowing that would be a good idea, but then again I guess I know the answer: Whoever added this feature was so set in a mindset where everything is compiled on demand and statically linked that they figured: why not? And if you are in that mindset, that actually sounds like a reasonable call to make. Source-based software distributions do have the advantage of offering this kind of flexibility on demand, see also the USE flags in Gentoo. Those are in fact one of the main reasons some people decide to compile an entire GNU/Linux distribution from source (and hence pick a distribution such as Gentoo) to begin with. Likewise, the Rust way of compiling dependencies on demand allows applications to make this kind of settings for them. Still, I can see several issues with that approach, e.g., what if an application depends on two libraries A and B that both depend on library C, but with conflicting flags? But the main issue is that, as you point out, it makes binary distribution of shared libraries highly impractical. That is why I think this was a short-sighted design decision. But we will have to work around this one way or another, because I doubt anyone will be willing to remove that questionable feature now that developers have come to rely on it. (And no, I do not think the current Fedora approach of packaging crates in source form only is the optimal approach, for reasons I have already pointed out in other threads on this list.) We don't need to remove this feature, just limit the scope into acceptable size. Vít I hope that the above now brings my point across constructively. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Mon, Jan 2, 2023 at 10:52 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > On 1/2/23 22:30, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > >> - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional > >> compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets > >> of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a > >> stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations > >> of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually > >> exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a > >> deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be > >> solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out > >> *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) > > > > Let me try formulating my criticism more constructively (since my previous > > reply failed both at being polite and at getting my point through, sorry > > again for that): > > > > I am really surprised to read above that Rust apparently allows applications > > to pick the flag with which the libraries they depend on are compiled. I > > really have to wonder why anyone would think that allowing that would be a > > good idea, but then again I guess I know the answer: Whoever added this > > feature was so set in a mindset where everything is compiled on demand and > > statically linked that they figured: why not? > > One of the major uses is to allow code that requires a particular > dependency to be disabled when that dependency is not available. > In particular, Rust targets platforms (such as OS kernels and embedded > systems) where the standard library is not available. This would be > extremely difficult without Cargo features. > platforms != features. That said, some crates do support "nostd" as a feature flag, others don't. It depends. > > And if you are in that mindset, that actually sounds like a reasonable call > > to make. Source-based software distributions do have the advantage of > > offering this kind of flexibility on demand, see also the USE flags in > > Gentoo. Those are in fact one of the main reasons some people decide to > > compile an entire GNU/Linux distribution from source (and hence pick a > > distribution such as Gentoo) to begin with. Likewise, the Rust way of > > compiling dependencies on demand allows applications to make this kind of > > settings for them. > > > > Still, I can see several issues with that approach, e.g., what if an > > application depends on two libraries A and B that both depend on library C, > > but with conflicting flags? > > Last I checked, Cargo features are additive, so the answer is that > C will be compiled with the union of all flags used by A and B. > > > But the main issue is that, as you point out, it > > makes binary distribution of shared libraries highly impractical. That is > > why I think this was a short-sighted design decision. > > Cargo features are supposed to be additive, so one can sometimes ship > a single package with the union of all features used by its reverse > dependencies. This must be handled on a case-by-case basis, though. Even if it wasn't, building a library in various feature modes would be possible. Cargo would just need to know which binary object to select to link with, which I imagine it would learn how to do if someone cared about shared libraries in Rust upstream. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On 1/2/23 22:30, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: >> - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional >> compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets >> of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a >> stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations >> of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually >> exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a >> deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be >> solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out >> *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) > > Let me try formulating my criticism more constructively (since my previous > reply failed both at being polite and at getting my point through, sorry > again for that): > > I am really surprised to read above that Rust apparently allows applications > to pick the flag with which the libraries they depend on are compiled. I > really have to wonder why anyone would think that allowing that would be a > good idea, but then again I guess I know the answer: Whoever added this > feature was so set in a mindset where everything is compiled on demand and > statically linked that they figured: why not? One of the major uses is to allow code that requires a particular dependency to be disabled when that dependency is not available. In particular, Rust targets platforms (such as OS kernels and embedded systems) where the standard library is not available. This would be extremely difficult without Cargo features. > And if you are in that mindset, that actually sounds like a reasonable call > to make. Source-based software distributions do have the advantage of > offering this kind of flexibility on demand, see also the USE flags in > Gentoo. Those are in fact one of the main reasons some people decide to > compile an entire GNU/Linux distribution from source (and hence pick a > distribution such as Gentoo) to begin with. Likewise, the Rust way of > compiling dependencies on demand allows applications to make this kind of > settings for them. > > Still, I can see several issues with that approach, e.g., what if an > application depends on two libraries A and B that both depend on library C, > but with conflicting flags? Last I checked, Cargo features are additive, so the answer is that C will be compiled with the union of all flags used by A and B. > But the main issue is that, as you point out, it > makes binary distribution of shared libraries highly impractical. That is > why I think this was a short-sighted design decision. Cargo features are supposed to be additive, so one can sometimes ship a single package with the union of all features used by its reverse dependencies. This must be handled on a case-by-case basis, though. -- Sincerely, Demi Marie Obenour (she/her/hers) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
Fabio Valentini wrote: > - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional > compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets > of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a > stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations > of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually > exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a > deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be > solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out > *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) Let me try formulating my criticism more constructively (since my previous reply failed both at being polite and at getting my point through, sorry again for that): I am really surprised to read above that Rust apparently allows applications to pick the flag with which the libraries they depend on are compiled. I really have to wonder why anyone would think that allowing that would be a good idea, but then again I guess I know the answer: Whoever added this feature was so set in a mindset where everything is compiled on demand and statically linked that they figured: why not? And if you are in that mindset, that actually sounds like a reasonable call to make. Source-based software distributions do have the advantage of offering this kind of flexibility on demand, see also the USE flags in Gentoo. Those are in fact one of the main reasons some people decide to compile an entire GNU/Linux distribution from source (and hence pick a distribution such as Gentoo) to begin with. Likewise, the Rust way of compiling dependencies on demand allows applications to make this kind of settings for them. Still, I can see several issues with that approach, e.g., what if an application depends on two libraries A and B that both depend on library C, but with conflicting flags? But the main issue is that, as you point out, it makes binary distribution of shared libraries highly impractical. That is why I think this was a short-sighted design decision. But we will have to work around this one way or another, because I doubt anyone will be willing to remove that questionable feature now that developers have come to rely on it. (And no, I do not think the current Fedora approach of packaging crates in source form only is the optimal approach, for reasons I have already pointed out in other threads on this list.) I hope that the above now brings my point across constructively. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 01:06:52PM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > Matthew Miller wrote: > > Okay. no. This is not how we do things here. > Apologies for my snide remark that visibly came out rude, sorry. Thank you, Kevin. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
Matthew Miller wrote: > Okay. no. This is not how we do things here. Apologies for my snide remark that visibly came out rude, sorry. Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Mon, Jan 02, 2023 at 01:59:46AM +0100, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > The application can pick the options with which each library is compiled? > What a stupid idea! Now I understand why the language is called "Rust". Okay. no. This is not how we do things here. -- Matthew Miller Fedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
Fabio Valentini wrote: > - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional > compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets > of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a > stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations > of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually > exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a > deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be > solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out > *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) The application can pick the options with which each library is compiled? What a stupid idea! Now I understand why the language is called "Rust". Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 3:48 AM Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:37 PM Kevin Kofler via devel > wrote: > > > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > > Can we please have gcc-rs also built (even though it's experimental)? > > > > Will gcc-rs be able to generate usable shared libraries for Rust crates? > > > > If someone were to spend the time to build the functionality into its > code generator, sure. I don't think that's high on anyone's list right > now, though. rustc can already produce shared libraries - they're just pretty useless due to two factors: - lack of stable ABI: for every compiler and dependency update, you'd need to recompile everything. And unless work on a stable ABI progresses in upstream Rust, I doubt that gcc-rs can do anything about this. - incompatible compile-time options (i.e. resulting in conditional compilation): different packages depend on crates with different sets of features enabled, sometimes with conflicting options. Even with a stable ABI, you'd need to build crates for all necessary combinations of configurations, and that matrix quickly explodes (i.e. usually exponentially - 2^n builds for for n independent flags). This is a deal-breaker for shared libraries in most cases, and also can't be solved by using a different compiler. (Unless you want to figure out *which* combinations to build, and *only* build these.) Fabio ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 9:37 PM Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > Can we please have gcc-rs also built (even though it's experimental)? > > Will gcc-rs be able to generate usable shared libraries for Rust crates? > If someone were to spend the time to build the functionality into its code generator, sure. I don't think that's high on anyone's list right now, though. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
Neal Gompa wrote: > Can we please have gcc-rs also built (even though it's experimental)? Will gcc-rs be able to generate usable shared libraries for Rust crates? Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 7:57 PM Demi Marie Obenour wrote: > > On 12/30/22 14:12, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > >> > >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF38 > >> > >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > >> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved > >> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. > >> > >> > >> == Summary == > >> Update the Fedora 38 GNU Toolchain to gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, and glibc > >> 2.37. > >> > >> The existing gdb 12.1 will be used as-is. > >> > >> The set of core GNU Toolchain packages for Fedora 38 are as follows: > >> > >> * GNU C Compiler 13.0 > >> ** Associated runtimes for C++ (libstdc++), Go (gccgo), OpenMP (gomp), > >> Fortran (gfortran), D (phobos), Objective C/C++. > >> * GNU Binary Utilities 2.39 > >> * GNU C Library 2.37 > >> * GNU Debugger 12.1 (immediately available in Fedora 37) > >> > >> The gcc 13.0 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain > >> system-wide update. > >> > >> The binutils 2.39 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU > >> Toolchain system-wide update. > >> > >> The glibc 2.37 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain > >> system-wide update. > >> > >> == Owner == > >> * Name: [[User:codonell|Carlos O'Donell]] > >> * Email: car...@redhat.com > >> > >> > >> == Detailed Description == > >> The GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binary Utilities, GNU C Library, and > >> the GNU Debugger make up the core part of the GNU Toolchain and it is > >> useful for our users to transition these components as a complete > >> implementation when making a new release of Fedora. > >> > >> The GNU Compiler Collection is expected to release version 13.0, after > >> the Fedora 38 release. It will contain many new features, documented > >> here: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html. The latest release > >> candidate for gcc 13 will be included in Fedora 38 and will be updated > >> when released. > >> > >> The GNU Binutils version 2.39 was released before Fedora 38; and we > >> have already been using this version of binutils in Fedora Rawhide > >> successfully to build the distribution for the last 4 months. Given > >> the present schedule for Fedora 38 we will continue to use Binutils > >> 2.39. > >> > >> The GNU C Library version 2.37 is expected to be release before Fedora > >> 38; we have started closely tracking the glibc 2.37 development code > >> in Fedora Rawhide and are addressing any issues as they arise. Given > >> the present schedule Fedora 38 will branch after the release of glibc > >> 2.37. However, the mass rebuild schedule means Fedora 38 will mass > >> rebuild (if required) before the final release of glibc 2.37, but > >> after the ABI is frozen. > >> > >> The GNU Debugger version 12.1 was released before Fedora 38; and we > >> plan to continue to use this version of the debugger. > >> > >> == Benefit to Fedora == > >> Stays up to date with latest features, improvements, security and bug > >> fixes from gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb upstream. > >> > >> The goal is to track and transition to the latest components of the > >> GNU Toolchain. > >> > >> == Scope == > >> * Proposal owners: Fedora Toolchain Team (gcc, glibc, binutils, gdb, > >> ...) developers need to ensure that gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb in > >> rawhide are stable and ready for the Fedora 38 branch. > >> > >> * Other developers: Given that glibc is backwards compatible and we > >> have been testing the new glibc in rawhide it should make very little > >> impact when updated, except for the occasional deprecation warnings > >> and removal of legacy interfaces from public header files. > >> > >> * Release engineering: A mass rebuild is strongly encouraged; > >> [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/XX #XX] > >> ** Filed after approval. > >> > >> * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) > >> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > >> * Alignment with Objectives: N/A > >> > >> > >> > >> == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > >> The compiler, the static linker and the the library are backwards > >> compatible with the previous version of Fedora. > >> > >> Some source changes may be required for the gcc 13 update. Please > >> refer to the latest changes here: > >> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html > >> > >> Any source level changes required for glibc 2.37 will be noted here: > >> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.37#Packaging_Changes > >> > >> == How To Test == > >> The GNU Compiler Collection has its own testsuite which is run during > >> the package build and examined by the gcc developers before being > >> uploaded. > >> > >> The GNU C Library has its own testsuite which is run during the > >> package build and examined by the glibc developers before being > >> uploaded. This test suite has over 6200 tests that run to verify the >
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On 12/30/22 14:12, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote: >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF38 >> >> This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes >> process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive >> community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved >> by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. >> >> >> == Summary == >> Update the Fedora 38 GNU Toolchain to gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, and glibc >> 2.37. >> >> The existing gdb 12.1 will be used as-is. >> >> The set of core GNU Toolchain packages for Fedora 38 are as follows: >> >> * GNU C Compiler 13.0 >> ** Associated runtimes for C++ (libstdc++), Go (gccgo), OpenMP (gomp), >> Fortran (gfortran), D (phobos), Objective C/C++. >> * GNU Binary Utilities 2.39 >> * GNU C Library 2.37 >> * GNU Debugger 12.1 (immediately available in Fedora 37) >> >> The gcc 13.0 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain >> system-wide update. >> >> The binutils 2.39 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU >> Toolchain system-wide update. >> >> The glibc 2.37 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain >> system-wide update. >> >> == Owner == >> * Name: [[User:codonell|Carlos O'Donell]] >> * Email: car...@redhat.com >> >> >> == Detailed Description == >> The GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binary Utilities, GNU C Library, and >> the GNU Debugger make up the core part of the GNU Toolchain and it is >> useful for our users to transition these components as a complete >> implementation when making a new release of Fedora. >> >> The GNU Compiler Collection is expected to release version 13.0, after >> the Fedora 38 release. It will contain many new features, documented >> here: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html. The latest release >> candidate for gcc 13 will be included in Fedora 38 and will be updated >> when released. >> >> The GNU Binutils version 2.39 was released before Fedora 38; and we >> have already been using this version of binutils in Fedora Rawhide >> successfully to build the distribution for the last 4 months. Given >> the present schedule for Fedora 38 we will continue to use Binutils >> 2.39. >> >> The GNU C Library version 2.37 is expected to be release before Fedora >> 38; we have started closely tracking the glibc 2.37 development code >> in Fedora Rawhide and are addressing any issues as they arise. Given >> the present schedule Fedora 38 will branch after the release of glibc >> 2.37. However, the mass rebuild schedule means Fedora 38 will mass >> rebuild (if required) before the final release of glibc 2.37, but >> after the ABI is frozen. >> >> The GNU Debugger version 12.1 was released before Fedora 38; and we >> plan to continue to use this version of the debugger. >> >> == Benefit to Fedora == >> Stays up to date with latest features, improvements, security and bug >> fixes from gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb upstream. >> >> The goal is to track and transition to the latest components of the >> GNU Toolchain. >> >> == Scope == >> * Proposal owners: Fedora Toolchain Team (gcc, glibc, binutils, gdb, >> ...) developers need to ensure that gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb in >> rawhide are stable and ready for the Fedora 38 branch. >> >> * Other developers: Given that glibc is backwards compatible and we >> have been testing the new glibc in rawhide it should make very little >> impact when updated, except for the occasional deprecation warnings >> and removal of legacy interfaces from public header files. >> >> * Release engineering: A mass rebuild is strongly encouraged; >> [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/XX #XX] >> ** Filed after approval. >> >> * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) >> * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) >> * Alignment with Objectives: N/A >> >> >> >> == Upgrade/compatibility impact == >> The compiler, the static linker and the the library are backwards >> compatible with the previous version of Fedora. >> >> Some source changes may be required for the gcc 13 update. Please >> refer to the latest changes here: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html >> >> Any source level changes required for glibc 2.37 will be noted here: >> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.37#Packaging_Changes >> >> == How To Test == >> The GNU Compiler Collection has its own testsuite which is run during >> the package build and examined by the gcc developers before being >> uploaded. >> >> The GNU C Library has its own testsuite which is run during the >> package build and examined by the glibc developers before being >> uploaded. This test suite has over 6200 tests that run to verify the >> correct operation of the library. In the future we may also run the >> microbenchmark to look for performance regressions. >> >> The GNU Binutils has its own testsuite which is run during the package >> build and examined by binutils developers before being uploaded. The >> regression
Re: F38 proposal: GNU Toolchain Update (gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, glibc 2.37, gdb 12.1) (System-Wide Change proposal)
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/GNUToolchainF38 > > This document represents a proposed Change. As part of the Changes > process, proposals are publicly announced in order to receive > community feedback. This proposal will only be implemented if approved > by the Fedora Engineering Steering Committee. > > > == Summary == > Update the Fedora 38 GNU Toolchain to gcc 13.0, binutils 2.39, and glibc 2.37. > > The existing gdb 12.1 will be used as-is. > > The set of core GNU Toolchain packages for Fedora 38 are as follows: > > * GNU C Compiler 13.0 > ** Associated runtimes for C++ (libstdc++), Go (gccgo), OpenMP (gomp), > Fortran (gfortran), D (phobos), Objective C/C++. > * GNU Binary Utilities 2.39 > * GNU C Library 2.37 > * GNU Debugger 12.1 (immediately available in Fedora 37) > > The gcc 13.0 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain > system-wide update. > > The binutils 2.39 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU > Toolchain system-wide update. > > The glibc 2.37 change will be tracked in this top-level GNU Toolchain > system-wide update. > > == Owner == > * Name: [[User:codonell|Carlos O'Donell]] > * Email: car...@redhat.com > > > == Detailed Description == > The GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Binary Utilities, GNU C Library, and > the GNU Debugger make up the core part of the GNU Toolchain and it is > useful for our users to transition these components as a complete > implementation when making a new release of Fedora. > > The GNU Compiler Collection is expected to release version 13.0, after > the Fedora 38 release. It will contain many new features, documented > here: https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html. The latest release > candidate for gcc 13 will be included in Fedora 38 and will be updated > when released. > > The GNU Binutils version 2.39 was released before Fedora 38; and we > have already been using this version of binutils in Fedora Rawhide > successfully to build the distribution for the last 4 months. Given > the present schedule for Fedora 38 we will continue to use Binutils > 2.39. > > The GNU C Library version 2.37 is expected to be release before Fedora > 38; we have started closely tracking the glibc 2.37 development code > in Fedora Rawhide and are addressing any issues as they arise. Given > the present schedule Fedora 38 will branch after the release of glibc > 2.37. However, the mass rebuild schedule means Fedora 38 will mass > rebuild (if required) before the final release of glibc 2.37, but > after the ABI is frozen. > > The GNU Debugger version 12.1 was released before Fedora 38; and we > plan to continue to use this version of the debugger. > > == Benefit to Fedora == > Stays up to date with latest features, improvements, security and bug > fixes from gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb upstream. > > The goal is to track and transition to the latest components of the > GNU Toolchain. > > == Scope == > * Proposal owners: Fedora Toolchain Team (gcc, glibc, binutils, gdb, > ...) developers need to ensure that gcc, glibc, binutils, and gdb in > rawhide are stable and ready for the Fedora 38 branch. > > * Other developers: Given that glibc is backwards compatible and we > have been testing the new glibc in rawhide it should make very little > impact when updated, except for the occasional deprecation warnings > and removal of legacy interfaces from public header files. > > * Release engineering: A mass rebuild is strongly encouraged; > [https://pagure.io/releng/issue/XX #XX] > ** Filed after approval. > > * Policies and guidelines: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Trademark approval: N/A (not needed for this Change) > * Alignment with Objectives: N/A > > > > == Upgrade/compatibility impact == > The compiler, the static linker and the the library are backwards > compatible with the previous version of Fedora. > > Some source changes may be required for the gcc 13 update. Please > refer to the latest changes here: > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-13/changes.html > > Any source level changes required for glibc 2.37 will be noted here: > https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Release/2.37#Packaging_Changes > > == How To Test == > The GNU Compiler Collection has its own testsuite which is run during > the package build and examined by the gcc developers before being > uploaded. > > The GNU C Library has its own testsuite which is run during the > package build and examined by the glibc developers before being > uploaded. This test suite has over 6200 tests that run to verify the > correct operation of the library. In the future we may also run the > microbenchmark to look for performance regressions. > > The GNU Binutils has its own testsuite which is run during the package > build and examined by binutils developers before being uploaded. The > regression testsuite is run to verify the correct operation of the > static linker and attendant utilities. > > The GNU Debugger has its own testsuite which is run during the
