This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 20 Aug 2015 13:51, Joseph Myers wrote: > For glibc 2.21 we increased the minimum GCC version for building glibc to > 4.6. There's one major GCC release a year, so the correspondingly old > version for glibc 2.23 would be GCC 4.7. What do people think about > increasing the minimum version requirement? i'd like to see the diff (not exact, but at least get an idea). the bullet points below don't seem terribly compelling to me. > * Being able to assume __atomic_* are supported by the compiler if > desired. do we actually get that ? not all arches expand these as insns but to external calls to libatomic. unless we're ok with libc/libpthread linking against libatomic ? > * When using pragmas to disable -Wmaybe-uninitialized warnings, no need to > have conditionals to disable -Wuninitialized instead for 4.6 > (-Wmaybe-uninitialized was added in 4.7). we could use -Wno-error for gcc-4.6 too ... > * 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 ? -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |