harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Weldon Washburn" <weldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] version of GCC...
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:13:29 GMT
FWIW, I have committed the last 4 or 5 patches with gcc v4.0.2-14.EL4.  I
did not have to install the compiler.  It was part of redhat package.  It
was under /usr/bin/gccv4.  All that was required was to hack on some
softlinks.



On 11/3/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <geir@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> Basically, I want to uplift my own platform to 4.x, and then work the
> kinks out of that patch.
>
> I just want to know what X is.
>
> If no one says anything, I'll figure it out and declare it :)
>
> geir
>
>
> Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> > Egor Pasko wrote:
> >> On the 0x216 day of Apache Harmony Gregory Shimansky wrote:
> >>> Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >>>> did we ever bottom out on what range of GCC we'll support?
> >>>> I have a patch I want to commit that is known to not compile under
> >>>> 4.1.1...
> >>> Hmm no I don't remember such agreement. I think GCC is mostly
> >>> backwards compatible, and anything that compiles on 4.1.1 should
> >>> compile on previous versions. So it is better to support the latest
> >>> stable.
> >>>
> >>> Not many people would like to install such GCC version, but someone
> >>> like me could at least give warnings that the most recent version of
> >>> GCC doesn't compile some code.
> >>
> >> yes, and comment JIRA accordingly (with suggested fix). This way we
> >> can support a very wide renge of GCCs constantly. I doubt I can use
> >> the latest GCC soon, so I cannot check patches constantly.
> >
> > I think you could use 4.1.0 in Fedora Core 5. Since patch level
> > shouldn't really affect the C++ compilation restrictions, the same patch
> > should break on 4.1.0 as well.
> >
> >> Does it make sense to use something CruiseControl-ish that walks
> >> around JIRA patches and reports statistics which of them build OK? I
> >> thought of such a tool recently.. Not a task I would dream to
> >> implement though.
> >
> > It could be an overkill to check on all possible gcc versions on all
> > possible distributions and all possible platforms... When someone who
> > has some problematic platform/distribution/gcc lets us know that
> > something doesn't compile, it is probably enough.
> >
>



-- 
Weldon Washburn
Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message