Re: Any objections to swapping base compilers to make gcc4.7 the default?

[Justin Sherrill <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

--047d7b414e8c88e43e04d4ab8eec
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

The only thing I can think of: can you quantify which packages aren't
building?  It sounds like this will break some packages, at least
temporarily, but I don't know which.

The ideal scenario is to never have anyone need to/care to put
DRAGONFLY_CCVER into their mk.conf.  That might be likely if the packages
affected are old enough/rarely used enough.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st> wrote:

> The gcc-4.4 compiler is still the default compiler on DragonFly-3.3. There
> seems to be general consensus on IRC that it's time to promote gcc-4.7 to
> that role and have gcc-4.4 serve as the backup.
>
> Is there any major objection to doing this?
>
> From a pkgsrc point of view, over 11,150 packages build with gcc-4.7.
> There are some older packages that fail the stricter gcc-4.7 checks that
> are easily patched, but they take time to add.  However, one could take a
> page from dports where gcc-4.4 is the primary compiler for pkgsrc
> regardless of which the system uses.  So to summarize: gcc-4.7 can already
> build most of what gcc-4.4 can in pkgsrc (plus some that it can't), and
> users could put "DRAGONFLY_CCVER?=gcc44" in the /usr/pkg/etc/mk.conf file
> if they want to keep using gcc-4.4 for packages.
>
> There's only one known problem with gcc-4.7 right now: The plugin
> mechanism introduced around gcc-4.6 doesn't work right.  The world/kernel
> doesn't use this mechanism and only 1-2 packages are failing because of it.
>  Nevertheless I'd like to fix it, so I'll attempt to do before before a
> compiler switch.  However, failing to do so shouldn't block the switch.
>
> So as the title says, is there a good reason to hold off on making gcc-4.7
> the primary compiler?
>
> John
>

--047d7b414e8c88e43e04d4ab8eec
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">The only thing I can think of: can you quantify which pack=
ages aren&#39;t building? =A0It sounds like this will break some packages, =
at least temporarily, but I don&#39;t know which. =A0<div><br></div><div>Th=
e ideal scenario is to never have anyone need to/care to put DRAGONFLY_CCVE=
R into their mk.conf. =A0That might be likely if the packages affected are =
old enough/rarely used enough.</div>
</div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri,=
 Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, John Marino <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailt=
o:dragonflybsd@marino.st" target=3D"_blank">dragonflybsd@marino.st</a>&gt;<=
/span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">The =
gcc-4.4 compiler is still the default compiler on DragonFly-3.3. There seem=
s to be general consensus on IRC that it&#39;s time to promote gcc-4.7 to t=
hat role and have gcc-4.4 serve as the backup.<br>

<br>
Is there any major objection to doing this?<br>
<br>