This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: requiring GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc
- From: Zack Weinberg <zackw at panix dot com>
- To: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 12:09:21 -0400
- Subject: Re: RFC: requiring GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508201344140 dot 30940 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150820161822 dot GH21236 at vapier> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508201623200 dot 30940 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <20150821152302 dot GL21236 at vapier>
On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Mike Frysinger <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20 Aug 2015 16:36, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Aug 2015, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>>> On 20 Aug 2015 13:51, Joseph Myers wrote:
>>>> * More C11 support, so we no longer need to XFAIL some conform/ tests and
>>>> could use the new features in glibc if desired.
>>> shouldn't we already be handling this and not XFAIL-ing when the compiler
>>> is new enough ?
>> Although such configure tests would be possible, they'd seem like
> i'm not suggesting feature tests. we're already testing & have access to the
> compiler version which means it should be possible to leverage that data.
I looked into this exact thing myself, last week, because the conform/
XPASSes were annoying me.
The configure script currently doesn't expose the GCC version number
to the Makefiles, which wouldn't be hard to change, but what *would*
be a pain is getting it into the Makefiles in a usable form.The
problem is that, as far as I can tell, the only way to do a
conditional XFAIL is with if-statements in the relevant Makefile ...
and gmake conditionals can't do numeric comparisons. (In fact, as far
as I can tell, there is no way to do arithmetic of any kind in the
gmake language, short of $(shell ) or $(guile ), the former being slow
and awkward, and the latter not necessarily available.) So you would
need a whole series of substitution variables,
GCC_VERSION_AT_LEAST_some_upper_limit, and frankly that seems like
more trouble than it's worth, if all we're getting out of it is the
elimination of three XPASSes.