[gentoo-dev] stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[gentoo-dev] stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

Hi,

according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1

However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me. 
Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because there 
seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one unstable:
https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc

Can someone shed some light on this?

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 735 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
>
> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because there
> seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one unstable:
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
>
> Can someone shed some light on this?
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>
On which platform do you have it unstable? The packages problem is probably
related to:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612178

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1415 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

Hi Tomas,

Tomas Mozes wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
> joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
>>
>> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
>> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because
>> there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one
>> unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
>>
>> Can someone shed some light on this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>>
> On which platform do you have it unstable? The packages problem is
> probably related to:
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612178

Amd64.

Yes, it might be the same problem. The ebuild for gcc-4.5.0-r3 on my machine 
lists amd64 as unstable after synching the tree while the ebuild available 
over packages.gentoo.org has a stable version in KEYWORDS.

Even if some GIT mirrors might be out of sync, it does not explain why 
https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc lists the same version 
more than once.

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, T, 18.04.2017 kell 11:16, kirjutas Jörg Schaible:
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> Tomas Mozes wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
> > joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
> > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showm
> > > sg=1
> > > 
> > > However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable
> > > for me.
> > > Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird,
> > > because
> > > there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and
> > > one
> > > unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
> > > 
> > > Can someone shed some light on this?
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Jörg
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > On which platform do you have it unstable? The packages problem is
> > probably related to:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612178
> 
> Amd64.
> 
> Yes, it might be the same problem. The ebuild for gcc-4.5.0-r3 on my
> machine 
> lists amd64 as unstable after synching the tree while the ebuild
> available 
> over packages.gentoo.org has a stable version in KEYWORDS.
> 
> Even if some GIT mirrors might be out of sync, it does not explain
> why 
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc lists the same
> version 
> more than once.

This is a packages.gentoo.org Ruby on Rails webapp bug, and has
absolutely nothing to do with some package being stable on an
architecture or not. Don't let that disturb you.


Mart

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[M. J. Everitt]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1777 bytes --]

On 18/04/17 10:44, Mart Raudsepp wrote:
> Ühel kenal päeval, T, 18.04.2017 kell 11:16, kirjutas Jörg Schaible:
>> Hi Tomas,
>>
>> Tomas Mozes wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
>>> joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
>>>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showm
>>>> sg=1
>>>>
>>>> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable
>>>> for me.
>>>> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird,
>>>> because
>>>> there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and
>>>> one
>>>> unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
>>>>
>>>> Can someone shed some light on this?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Jörg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> On which platform do you have it unstable? The packages problem is
>>> probably related to:
>>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612178
>> Amd64.
>>
>> Yes, it might be the same problem. The ebuild for gcc-4.5.0-r3 on my
>> machine 
>> lists amd64 as unstable after synching the tree while the ebuild
>> available 
>> over packages.gentoo.org has a stable version in KEYWORDS.
>>
>> Even if some GIT mirrors might be out of sync, it does not explain
>> why 
>> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc lists the same
>> version 
>> more than once.
> This is a packages.gentoo.org Ruby on Rails webapp bug, and has
> absolutely nothing to do with some package being stable on an
> architecture or not. Don't let that disturb you.
>
>
> Mart
>
+1

CONFIRMED but fix unknown at present. Gcc is /not/ the only package that
is affected by the Ruby-on-Rails bug.

RESOLVED:DUPLICATE :]


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1595 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 11:16 AM, Jörg Schaible <
joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> Hi Tomas,
>
> Tomas Mozes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
> > joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
> >>
> >> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
> >> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because
> >> there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one
> >> unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
> >>
> >> Can someone shed some light on this?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jörg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > On which platform do you have it unstable? The packages problem is
> > probably related to:
> > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=612178
>
> Amd64.
>
> Yes, it might be the same problem. The ebuild for gcc-4.5.0-r3 on my
> machine
> lists amd64 as unstable after synching the tree while the ebuild available
> over packages.gentoo.org has a stable version in KEYWORDS.
>
> Even if some GIT mirrors might be out of sync, it does not explain why
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc lists the same version
> more than once.
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>
As mentioned by others, bugs on packages.gentoo.org will not affect your
portage tree. I've just installed gcc 5.4.0-r3 on amd64, so try syncing
your portage tree. Don't you have it in your package.mask?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2790 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

Tomas Mozes wrote:

[snip]

> As mentioned by others, bugs on packages.gentoo.org will not affect your
> portage tree. I've just installed gcc 5.4.0-r3 on amd64, so try syncing
> your portage tree. Don't you have it in your package.mask?

As said, I synced the tree twice this morning (4 hours ago) and the KEYWORDS 
in the ebuild do not declare amd64 as stable although it was committed to 
GIT already yesterday. And this is no wonder, because the stable branch of 
the GIT mirror is still not up-to-date:
https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/tree/stable/sys-devel/gcc

gcc-4.5.0-r3 is declared unstable and is not masked.

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[James Le Cuirot]

On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:12:13 +0200
Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> As said, I synced the tree twice this morning (4 hours ago) and the
> KEYWORDS in the ebuild do not declare amd64 as stable although it was
> committed to GIT already yesterday. And this is no wonder, because
> the stable branch of the GIT mirror is still not up-to-date:
> https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/tree/stable/sys-devel/gcc

It's been held up by this outstanding issue:
https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/58d678e2a/output.html#dev-db/psqlodbc

-- 
James Le Cuirot (chewi)
Gentoo Linux Developer

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Aaron W. Swenson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 740 bytes --]

On 2017-04-18 14:27, James Le Cuirot wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:12:13 +0200
> Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> 
> > As said, I synced the tree twice this morning (4 hours ago) and the
> > KEYWORDS in the ebuild do not declare amd64 as stable although it was
> > committed to GIT already yesterday. And this is no wonder, because
> > the stable branch of the GIT mirror is still not up-to-date:
> > https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/tree/stable/sys-devel/gcc
> 
> It's been held up by this outstanding issue:
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/58d678e2a/output.html#dev-db/psqlodbc

Oh, that’s ridiculous.

I’ve just dropped the particular ebuild that used pgsql-9.1 now.

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 343 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

James Le Cuirot wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 15:12:13 +0200
> Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> 
>> As said, I synced the tree twice this morning (4 hours ago) and the
>> KEYWORDS in the ebuild do not declare amd64 as stable although it was
>> committed to GIT already yesterday. And this is no wonder, because
>> the stable branch of the GIT mirror is still not up-to-date:
>> https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/tree/stable/sys-devel/gcc
> 
> It's been held up by this outstanding issue:
> https://qa-reports.gentoo.org/output/gentoo-ci/58d678e2a/output.html#dev-db/psqlodbc
> 

Thanks for the info. Always good to know, why something does not behave as 
expected.

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1612 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM, Jörg Schaible <
joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> Tomas Mozes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > As mentioned by others, bugs on packages.gentoo.org will not affect your
> > portage tree. I've just installed gcc 5.4.0-r3 on amd64, so try syncing
> > your portage tree. Don't you have it in your package.mask?
>
> As said, I synced the tree twice this morning (4 hours ago) and the
> KEYWORDS
> in the ebuild do not declare amd64 as stable although it was committed to
> GIT already yesterday. And this is no wonder, because the stable branch of
> the GIT mirror is still not up-to-date:
> https://github.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/tree/stable/sys-devel/gcc
>
> gcc-4.5.0-r3 is declared unstable and is not masked.
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>
According to git
https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/commit/?id=e2be964b72fce0cdb7c16a378b4fa3fa1d37ee38
- the KEYWORDS have amd64 and x86. The github mirror shows the same
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/gentoo-mirror/gentoo/stable/sys-devel/gcc/gcc-5.4.0-r3.ebuild.
Syncing the tree shows the same.

And as such, on a stable system:

# emerge -p gcc
[ebuild  NS    ] sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r3:5.4.0::gentoo [4.9.4:4.9.4::gentoo]
USE="cxx fortran (multilib) nptl openmp sanitize vtv (-altivec) (-awt)
-cilk -debug -doc (-fixed-point) -gcj -go -graphite (-hardened) (-jit)
(-libssp) -mpx -nls -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -regression-test
-vanilla" 0 KiB

The git message says it's stable, the bug report also, the mirrors too, so
yes, it is stable now. Maybe check another rsync mirror.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2557 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 628 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
>
> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because there
> seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one unstable:
> https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
>
> Can someone shed some light on this?
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>
You did mean 5.4.0-r3, right?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1236 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

Tomas Mozes wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
> joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
>> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
>>
>> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
>> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because
>> there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one
>> unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
>>
>> Can someone shed some light on this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Jörg
>>
>>
>>
> You did mean 5.4.0-r3, right?

Right. And James found the reason why was not in the stable branch.

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1061 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Jörg Schaible <
joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:

> Tomas Mozes wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Jörg Schaible <
> > joerg.schaible@bpm-inspire.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> according the logs, gcc 4.5.0-r3 is stable for amd64:
> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/sys-devel/gcc?showmsg=1
> >>
> >> However, after synching the tree, this version is still unstable for me.
> >> Looking at the packages overview, it becomes even more weird, because
> >> there seem to be two 4.5.0-r3 versions, one stable for amd64 and one
> >> unstable: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-devel/gcc
> >>
> >> Can someone shed some light on this?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Jörg
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > You did mean 5.4.0-r3, right?
>
> Right. And James found the reason why was not in the stable branch.
>
> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>
It is stable. Even there are open bugs, arches started stabilizing it.

What do you get when you run:
# emerge -pv =sys-devel/gcc-5.4.0-r3

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1959 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Walter Dnes]

> It is stable. Even there are open bugs, arches started stabilizing it.

  Is gcc-5.4.0 built "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible"?
On the Pale Moon linux sub-forum, there were crashing issues with the
contributed Ubuntu build when Ubuntu switched to gcc 5.  The maintainer
of the Ubuntu Pale Moon build had to drop back to gcc 4.9 to fix the
crashes.

  At home, for personal use, I build Pale Moon with a manually built
version of gcc 5.4.0.  Pale Moon has been rock solid for me on Gentoo
and on a refurbished Lenovo T400 running Puppy Linux.  The option
"--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible" may be the reason it
works for me.

  This may be valid for other applications, too.  I think the problem is
that you need the entire system to be one of...

"--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=new" or

"--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible"

  Mixing together does not seem to work.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Tomas Mozes]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> > It is stable. Even there are open bugs, arches started stabilizing it.
>
>   Is gcc-5.4.0 built "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible"?
> On the Pale Moon linux sub-forum, there were crashing issues with the
> contributed Ubuntu build when Ubuntu switched to gcc 5.  The maintainer
> of the Ubuntu Pale Moon build had to drop back to gcc 4.9 to fix the
> crashes.
>
>   At home, for personal use, I build Pale Moon with a manually built
> version of gcc 5.4.0.  Pale Moon has been rock solid for me on Gentoo
> and on a refurbished Lenovo T400 running Puppy Linux.  The option
> "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible" may be the reason it
> works for me.
>
>   This may be valid for other applications, too.  I think the problem is
> that you need the entire system to be one of...
>
> "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=new" or
>
> "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible"
>
>   Mixing together does not seem to work.
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>
>
The default is new:
https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2015-10-22-gcc-5-new-c++11-abi.html

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1987 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:36:03AM +0200, Tomas Mozes wrote
>
> The default is new:
> https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2015-10-22-gcc-5-new-c++11-abi.html

  And the news item says...

> Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-5

...which means that people like me, who currently have 4.9.4, won't know
about it until after the fact.  Then they'd have to...

[i660][waltdnes][~] emerge -pve @world
Total: 529 packages (3 upgrades, 526 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 10,360 KiB

...fun !NOT.  If you're doing a fresh install, ***WITH A GCC5-BUILT
INSTALL CD AND STAGE 3***, then yes, go for it.  But changing horses in
mid-stream can be painfull.  Would it hurt to stay with 4.9.4 for the
time being, assuming that you're not using prebuilt stuff like
firefox-bin or libreoffice-bin?  What would be the best way to go about
it?

A) Would 5.4.0 be slotted separately, and 4.9.4 left as the default?

B) Add "-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0" to CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS

C) Mask out ">sys-devel/gcc-4.99"

D) Allow "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible" via a USE flag?

  Whatever option is selected, people need to be warned about it *NOW*,
not after gcc-5.4.0 has been installed.  I wonder if it's going to be
worth it to go to 5.4.  Looking at https://gcc.gnu.org/ today, I see...

GCC 5.4 Status: 2016-06-03 (regression fixes & docs only).

GCC 6.3 Status: 2016-12-21 (regression fixes & docs only). 

GCC 7.1 Status: 2017-04-20 (frozen, all changes require RM approval).

Development: GCC 8.0 Status: 2017-04-20 (regression fixes & docs only).

  Maybe we should what many enterprises do with Windows; i.e. skip a
version and go straight to gcc-6.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Mart Raudsepp]

Ühel kenal päeval, N, 20.04.2017 kell 18:17, kirjutas Walter Dnes:
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 07:36:03AM +0200, Tomas Mozes wrote
> > 
> > The default is new:
> > https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2015-10-22-gcc-5-new-c++1
> > 1-abi.html
> 
>   And the news item says...
> 
> > Display-If-Installed: >=sys-devel/gcc-5
> 
> ...which means that people like me, who currently have 4.9.4, won't
> know
> about it until after the fact.  Then they'd have to...

You will still have 4.9.4 until you unmerge it, and will still use
4.9.4 until you gcc-config to gcc5.

> GCC 5.4 Status: 2016-06-03 (regression fixes & docs only).
> 
> GCC 6.3 Status: 2016-12-21 (regression fixes & docs only). 
> 
> GCC 7.1 Status: 2017-04-20 (frozen, all changes require RM approval).
> 
> Development: GCC 8.0 Status: 2017-04-20 (regression fixes & docs
> only).

Notice how 4.9 isn't even mentioned there as receiving regression fixes
or whatnot anymore.

>   Maybe we should what many enterprises do with Windows; i.e. skip a
> version and go straight to gcc-6.

No. Maybe with gcc 5 to 7.


Other than that, I am terribly sorry for your inconvenience. But 2014
called and wanted its compiler back :(  So we are "bleeding edge" again

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Matthias Maier]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017, at 17:17 CDT, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

> ...fun !NOT.  If you're doing a fresh install, ***WITH A GCC5-BUILT
> INSTALL CD AND STAGE 3***, then yes, go for it.  But changing horses in
> mid-stream can be painfull.  Would it hurt to stay with 4.9.4 for the
> time being, assuming that you're not using prebuilt stuff like
> firefox-bin or libreoffice-bin?  What would be the best way to go about
> it?

The technical discussion how to proceed with the new C++ abi happend two
years ago. We decided to do the only sensible thing in switching to the
new C++ abi. (And hopefully only see very minor issues in ABI
incompatibilities later on.)

It unfortunately involves rebuilding parts of your userland.


> A) Would 5.4.0 be slotted separately, and 4.9.4 left as the default?
> B) Add "-D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0" to CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
> C) Mask out ">sys-devel/gcc-4.99"
> D) Allow "--with-default-libstdcxx-abi=gcc4-compatible" via a USE flag?

(A-C) gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-4.9.4 are slotted separately. What is going to
be the default is entirely up to you. If overriding the ABI via (B) is
such a great idea is yours to decide.

(D) will definitely not happen.


> Maybe we should what many enterprises do with Windows; i.e. skip a
> version and go straight to gcc-6.

No. We already stabilized gcc-5. A future stabilization of gcc-6/7 won't
be nearly as painful as this one. There is no reason to skip something.


Best,
Matthias

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote

> (A-C) gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-4.9.4 are slotted separately. What is going to
> be the default is entirely up to you.

  Good to hear.  Like I said, on a fresh install I'd go with the current
version (5.4).  But for now, I'll wait for other people to experience
problems.  If nothing major, I might switch at a convenient time.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

[gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Jörg Schaible]

Walter Dnes wrote:

> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote
> 
>> (A-C) gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-4.9.4 are slotted separately. What is going to
>> be the default is entirely up to you.
> 
>   Good to hear.  Like I said, on a fresh install I'd go with the current
> version (5.4).  But for now, I'll wait for other people to experience
> problems.  If nothing major, I might switch at a convenient time.
> 


You just have to be careful with

 emerge -c

This will remove the old "unused" gcc silently :-/

Cheers,
Jörg

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: stable gcc 5.4.0 ??

[Francesco Riosa]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 852 bytes --]

2017-04-21 18:21 GMT+02:00 Jörg Schaible <joerg.schaible@gmx.de>:

> Walter Dnes wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 05:52:20PM -0500, Matthias Maier wrote
> >
> >> (A-C) gcc-5.4.0 and gcc-4.9.4 are slotted separately. What is going to
> >> be the default is entirely up to you.
> >
> >   Good to hear.  Like I said, on a fresh install I'd go with the current
> > version (5.4).  But for now, I'll wait for other people to experience
> > problems.  If nothing major, I might switch at a convenient time.
> >
>
>
> You just have to be careful with
>
>  emerge -c
>
> This will remove the old "unused" gcc silently :-/
>

no fear about that issue a:
emerge --select --noreplace sys-devel/gcc:4.9.4
to keep your wanted version of gcc in the world file
(--select is usually already the default)


> Cheers,
> Jörg
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1482 bytes --]