GCC and binutils plans for bullseye

Debian bullseye will be based on a gcc-10 package taken from the gcc-10 upstream branch, and binutils based on a binutils package taken from the 2.35 branch. I'm planning to make gcc-10 the default after gcc-10 (10.2.0) is available (upstream targets mid July). binutils will be updated before

Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

2018-08-13 04:25 Paul Wise: On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: 2018-07-30 22:36 Adrian Bunk: And the next burden will be if riscv64 gets added in bullseye. [*] Unlike other arches, this one is not restricted to a single vendor so hardware can be

Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 1:19 AM, Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo wrote: > 2018-07-30 22:36 Adrian Bunk: >> >> And the next burden will be if riscv64 gets added in bullseye. > > [*] Unlike other arches, this one is not restricted to a single vendor >so hardware can be annouced at any time from

Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

2018-07-30 22:36 Adrian Bunk: And the next burden will be if riscv64 gets added in bullseye. Not likely, I think, since for example there's almost no hardware available for end-users to buy (or to use for buildds), and this will probably be the case at least until the freeze [*]. Another

Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 05:59:28PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >... > - armel: The armv4t default isn't used very much anymore, The baseline is armv5te since last year. > and we had issues in the past. Could you elaborate on that? The latest major issue I am aware of was about #727621 and

Re: GCC and binutils updates for buster

On 2018-07-16 17:59:28 [+0200], Matthias Klose wrote: > architectures. Some notes on other candidates for release architectures: > > - armel: The armv4t default isn't used very much anymore, and we had >issues in the past. Would things get better with armv5te as default or is the lack of

GCC and binutils updates for buster

GCC 8 is available in testing/unstable, and upstream is approaching the first point release. I am planning to make GCC 8 the default at the end of the week (gdc and gccgo already point to GCC 8). Most runtime libraries built from GCC are already used in the version built from GCC 8, so I don't

Re: Reply headers vs. in-mail requests (was Re: Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release))

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 09:04:50AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > I'm pretty sure there is no header setting which will make this fully > automatic. I have been suitably admonished off-list for starting this $DEITY-awful sub-topic once again. Consider myself chastened! -- Jonathan Dowland Please

Reply headers vs. in-mail requests (was Re: Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release))

On 2016-07-01 at 08:43, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 06:07:27AM +, lumin wrote: > >> (please keep me in CC list) > > I suggest setting the headers to make this automatic rather than > asking people to remember to do it :) I'm pretty sure there is no header setting

Re: Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release)

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 06:07:27AM +, lumin wrote: > (please keep me in CC list) I suggest setting the headers to make this automatic rather than asking people to remember to do it :) > I'm pointing out a BIG problem introduced by stretch's GCC-6-only plan. > > In brief CUDA 8.0~RC fails to

Re: Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release)

Le 01/07/2016 à 08:51, lumin a écrit : > > Releated bug on ArchLinux: > https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49272?project=5=12602 > > There are some hacks but none of them seems to be "an actual solution > to packaging". Personally, I would create a gcc/g++ wrapper in order to capture the exact

Re: Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release)

Releated bug on ArchLinux: https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/49272?project=5=12602 There are some hacks but none of them seems to be "an actual solution to packaging". On Fri, 2016-07-01 at 06:07 +, lumin wrote: > Hi all, > (please keep me in CC list) > > I'm pointing out a BIG problem

Bad news to CUDA applications (was: Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release)

Hi all, (please keep me in CC list) I'm pointing out a BIG problem introduced by stretch's GCC-6-only plan. In brief CUDA 8.0~RC fails to work with GCC-6, this conclusion comes from my local Caffe build log as attached. That is to say, after GCC-6 transition *ALL* packages depending on cuda

Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 04:03:44PM +0200, Paul Wise wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > > > As announced a year ago [1], GCC 6 will be the default GCC for the Debian > > stretch release. GCC 6 is now available in testing, and can be made the > > default > > by

Re: BOOST-1.60 compiled with g++6, [Was: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release]

Hello, On 27 June 2016 at 11:37, Dimitri John Ledkov wrote: > Hello, > > On 26 June 2016 at 11:31, Gert Wollny wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> considering that BOOST 1.60 changes the ABI when compiled with -std >= >> c++11 versus -std <= c++03 (cf. [1]) , and that

Re: BOOST-1.60 compiled with g++6, [Was: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release]

Hello, On 26 June 2016 at 11:31, Gert Wollny wrote: > Hi all, > > considering that BOOST 1.60 changes the ABI when compiled with -std >= > c++11 versus -std <= c++03 (cf. [1]) , and that g++-6 defaults to > -std=c++14 it would probably be a good idea if a boost >= 1.60

BOOST-1.60 compiled with g++6, [Was: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release]

Hi all,  considering that BOOST 1.60 changes the ABI when compiled with -std >= c++11 versus -std <= c++03 (cf. [1]) , and that g++-6 defaults to  -std=c++14 it would probably be a good idea if a boost >= 1.60 version compiled with g++6 would be available from experimental when the bug squashing

Re: GCC 6 & binutils for the Debian stretch release

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:46 PM, Matthias Klose wrote: > As announced a year ago [1], GCC 6 will be the default GCC for the Debian > stretch release. GCC 6 is now available in testing, and can be made the > default > by installing the gcc/g++ packages from experimental. Known build failures >

Re: gcc and binutils

Bernd Eckenfels writes (gcc and binutils): ist it possile that on a fresh new install gcc is installed before binutils is installed, and therefore fail to configure? If I run configure afterwards everything is fine. Will dpkg install a package first if it sees that other ones depend

gcc and binutils

Hi, ist it possile that on a fresh new install gcc is installed before binutils is installed, and therefore fail to configure? If I run configure afterwards everything is fine. Will dpkg install a package first if it sees that other ones depend on it? Greetings Bernd -- (OO) -- [EMAIL