lang/gcc46

[Doug Barton]

On 07/31/2012 08:57, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Jul 2012, Doug Barton wrote:
>>> lang/gcc and lang/gcc46 should be fully compatible, without rebuilds
>>> necessary.  Only when lang/gcc is going to move to GCC 4.7 later this
>>> year would I consider that.
>> IMO this highlights the issue that unversioned instances of ports that
>> really need versioning (like gcc) are a bad idea. It's much better for
>> users to be able to tie their installations to a particular version, and
>> then only update when they need to. The fact that someday in the future
>> users who innocently upgrade lang/gcc will suddenly find that everything
>> relying on libgcc at runtime is now broken pretty much speaks for itself.
> 
> The fact that I would consider that, was not supposed to imply
> breakage. :-)  I was more thinking better optimization and other
> benefits.

I'm not asking you to agree with me that the current situation is
broken. I'm merely pointing out that it *is* broken, and pointing out
solid, non-broken examples that we already have.

> In my day job, we have been doing upgrades from GCC 4.x to GCC 4.x+y
> run-times quite successfully and without any breakage more than once.
> And we've got many, quite many, users.

Just to be clear, you compile stuff with gcc 4.6, that is linked against
libgcc, and then you update to 4.7, with a new libgcc, and everything
still works? If so, that's great, I'm glad to hear that it's not a problem.

> In other words, if there is a challenge it's not GCC per se, more 
> our packaging of it (and some work Bapt is doing on the packaging
> infrastructure should help with that).

I don't know of any magic solutions in the works that will solve the
separation of libgcc from the compiler. :)

Doug

-- 

    I am only one, but I am one.  I cannot do everything, but I can do
    something.  And I will not let what I cannot do interfere with what
    I can do.
			-- Edward Everett Hale, (1822 - 1909)