Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
On 01 Oct 2015 09:49, Mike Frysinger wrote: > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? i want to fix these two bugs (or at least get a better handle on them). they're related to graphite/ISL, so they don't impact most people. https://bugs.gentoo.org/555684 https://bugs.gentoo.org/560904 hopefully i should get to them in the next week any other 11th hour reports ? -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
On 10/1/15 9:49 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? the general list looks pretty good: https://bugs.gentoo.org/536984 the only glaring issue is the C++11 ABI breakage: https://bugs.gentoo.org/542482 we already posted a news item when the breakage started in gcc-4.7: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4fa0c84858b4df49668da20302fc5b6f but since gcc-5.x makes this the new default standard, more people are going to run into it, so we probably want a reminder. do we want any sort of automation otherwise here ? -mike A reminder message with suggestions about how to upgrade safely would be good. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 10:24 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 01 Oct 2015 10:11, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into > > > ~arch ? > > > > For one thing, the fix for runtime failure in 64-bit wine: > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838 > > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=225935 > > did you file a bug for toolchain@ ? i'm not seeing one. > changes don't go in w/out a bug on our side. > -mike https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=549768 - now reassigned from wine to toolchain :) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
2015-10-01 16:49 GMT+03:00 Mike Frysinger : > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? > Just letting know that gcc 5 isn't compatible with clang due to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23529 Setting gcc as a primary compiler will effectively make programs non-buildable with clang (and perhaps icc, not sure about its status). -- Georg Rudoy
Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
On 01 Oct 2015 10:11, Alexandre Rostovtsev wrote: > On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? > > For one thing, the fix for runtime failure in 64-bit wine: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838 > https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=225935 did you file a bug for toolchain@ ? i'm not seeing one. changes don't go in w/out a bug on our side. -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
On Thu, 2015-10-01 at 09:49 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? For one thing, the fix for runtime failure in 64-bit wine: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66838 https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/gcc?view=revision&revision=225935 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] moving gcc-5.2 to unstable
what do people want to have in place before we move gcc-5.2 into ~arch ? the general list looks pretty good: https://bugs.gentoo.org/536984 the only glaring issue is the C++11 ABI breakage: https://bugs.gentoo.org/542482 we already posted a news item when the breakage started in gcc-4.7: https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/4fa0c84858b4df49668da20302fc5b6f but since gcc-5.x makes this the new default standard, more people are going to run into it, so we probably want a reminder. do we want any sort of automation otherwise here ? -mike signature.asc Description: Digital signature
