This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: requiring GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc
- From: David Miller <davem at davemloft dot net>
- To: joseph at codesourcery dot com
- Cc: libc-alpha at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 13:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
- 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> <alpine dot DEB dot 2 dot 10 dot 1508242014240 dot 23857 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk>
From: Joseph Myers <email@example.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2015 20:28:34 +0000
> Would anyone else like to comment on (a) the general principle of doing
> time-based upgrades of the minimum GCC and binutils versions for building
> glibc (so typically upgrade every other glibc release cycle, since GCC and
> binutils have major releases about once a year) or (b) this particular
> proposed increase?
It can be a pain to upgrade gcc, and in fact for me this is much
harder than updating the kernel for example. If I upgrade gcc it
effects all of my development work, not just the work I do with glibc.
Yes I could just have a compiler in a separate PATH just for glibc
work, but that isn't convenient either.
I suspect a lot of people trying to maintain older architectures and
keep glibc working on them are in this situation too.
I understand the features/longterm-maintainence arguments, but like
-Werror and friends, there is a cost for contributors with less time
and resources than the most active contributors.
Just my $0.02