Why can't gcc-4.2.1 build usable libreoffice?

[Ian Lepore]

On Tue, 2013-02-19 at 13:03 -0500, Mikhail T. wrote:
> On 19.02.2013 12:23, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> > I bet *office just uses a bunch of either horrible syntax that breaks
> > things, or newer C/C++ features that are buggy in older compilers.
> Well, yes, this is, what I wanted to find out -- which case is it. There was a 
> point, when we had a special compiler-port just for OpenOffice.org:
> 
>     http://www.freshports.org/lang/gcc-ooo
> 
> That port was building gcc-3.4.1, which was NOT "too old" for the office only a 
> few years ago (when gcc-4.2.1 already existed).
> 
> I'd love to see a comment from people, who /know/ what is going on. Then we may 
> be able to either patch-up the base compiler, or the office, code or both. And 
> let the healing begin[TM].
> 
> I'm afraid, though, the compiler-people are too cool to use an office suit -- 
> finding vi (and, perhaps, TeX) sufficient for their documents, while the office@ 
> maintainers prefer the easy way of just adding the newer compiler to the 
> requirements. Getting these two distinct groups to meet in one thread was the 
> point of this topic...
> 
> On 19.02.2013 12:35, Ian Lepore wrote:
> >> In any case, why hasn't that port been blessed with the "requires gcc
> >> >4.6+" port option/dependency? I thought that's why we_have_  that.
> > It has been.  The OP stated the he disabled that and forced use of gcc
> > 4.2.1, and is now complaining that it doesn't work after specifically
> > taking steps to make it not-work.
> Ian, contrary to your accusation, I never complained that the port does not 
> work. Moreover, to prevent that suspicion from entering sincere minds, I 
> explicitly said: "I do not blame the office@ team -- the port did not want to 
> use gcc-4.2.1, I forced it to." Did you not see that sentence, or do 
> deliberately misrepresent my original post?
> 
>     -mi

Comments such as "compiler people are too cool..." as well as things
such as

> Upstream gcc? They may not be very interested, indeed, but it is
> FreeBSD, that 
> delivered this compiler to me -- in the most recent stable version of
> the OS. 
> 
and
> 
> But I agree, that it is insane, that the base compiler can not compile
> one of 
> the most popular open-source application-suits...

All strike me as being "complaints," but if that seems like a
mis-characterization to you, then I apologize.

Licensing prevents us from updating gcc in the base.  Maintainers of
large opensource suites are likely to have little interest in supporting
a buggy old compiler years after it has been obsoleted by newer
versions.  The reasonable solution is to use a newer compiler to compile
newer ports, and put ongoing maintenance efforts into solidifying the
replacement compiler rather than propping up the buggy old one.

-- Ian