This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: RFC: requiring GCC >= 4.7 to build glibc
- From: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Florian Weimer <fweimer at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>, <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2015 16:08:05 +0000
- 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 1510141630430 dot 20331 at digraph dot polyomino dot org dot uk> <561FA95E dot 9000203 at redhat dot com>
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 10/14/2015 06:33 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
> > Here is a 14-patch series for requiring GCC 4.7 and making consequent
> > cleanups. I have't written ChangeLog entries or other write-ups for
> > individual patches, or tested the individual patches on their own, or
> > done non-x86_64 testing where applicable, or done comparisons of
> > installed shared libraries to make sure there aren't unexpected
> > changes, but it should be illustrative of what requiring GCC 4.7 would
> > enable (which I think is more than most such version increments).
>
> I read through the patches, and they look okay to me.
Thanks. The question at this point is more whether people think these
changes provide sufficient justification for the version requirement,
taking into account the concerns expressed by Mike and David. (See
Carlos's definition at <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Consensus>,
"Consensus need not imply unanimity.".) The patches would be posted
individually for review (except where they fall within areas I maintain -
patches 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13) if consensus on the version requirement is
reached.
(I've realised that patch 1 is missing a NEWS update.)
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com