harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alexei Zakharov" <alexei.zakha...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] gcc version 4.x as our "default" compiler version?
Date Wed, 17 Jan 2007 13:14:09 GMT
> > AFAIK there are no Linux distributions which have versions that
> > don't have gcc 4.x included, it is the default compiler in all last
> > distros versions. So all last (and maybe some before last) versions
> > of Linux distros should have no problems with libstdc++.so.6.

> I use RHEL4 update 4 and the default compiler is gcc 3.4.6.  It does
> include an install of gcc 4.1.0, but it is named "gcc4" and "g++4".

I've just made fresh installation of Debian Stable system. The newest
available gcc release is 3.4.13. There is no gcc 4.x. Perhaps it is
necessary to switch to "testing" (less stable) variant of the debian
package tree to get gcc4.

Regards,

2007/1/10, Naveen Neelakantam <neelakan@uiuc.edu>:
>
> On Jan 10, 2007, at 12:02 PM, Gregory Shimansky wrote:
>
> > Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
> >> In the past, we've talked about what versions of GCC we will
> >> consider as our "supported" toolchain.  We noted that it's useful
> >> to keep using other versions, such as 3.x, to make sure we're not
> >> inadvertently hiding bugs through compiler bugs.
> >> I'd like to tighten up this degree of freedom a little.
> >> What's the harm if we declare 4.x as our default compiler
> >> version?  What potential platforms do we lose, or who do we
> >> inconvenience because requiring stdc++.so.6?
> >
> > AFAIK there are no Linux distributions which have versions that
> > don't have gcc 4.x included, it is the default compiler in all last
> > distros versions. So all last (and maybe some before last) versions
> > of Linux distros should have no problems with libstdc++.so.6.
>
> I use RHEL4 update 4 and the default compiler is gcc 3.4.6.  It does
> include an install of gcc 4.1.0, but it is named "gcc4" and "g++4".
>
> I am happy to switch to using the gcc 4.x install that I have, but I
> am not sure how to tell the build infrastructure to use "gcc4"
> instead of "gcc".  I did try building DRLVM by typing "./build.sh -
> DCXX=gcc4" but I got the following error:
>
> --------------------
> BUILD FAILED
> /home/dcsfiles/neelakan/Sandbox/Harmony/stable/working_vm/build/make/
> build.xml:432: The following error occurred while executing this line:
> /home/dcsfiles/neelakan/Sandbox/Harmony/stable/working_vm/build/make/
> build.xml:439: The following error occurred while executing this line:
> /home/dcsfiles/neelakan/Sandbox/Harmony/stable/working_vm/build/make/
> build_component.xml:72: The following error occurred while executing
> this line:
> /home/dcsfiles/neelakan/Sandbox/Harmony/stable/working_vm/build/
> lnx_ia32_gcc4_debug/semis/build/targets/common_extra.xml:8: gcc4 is
> not a legal value for this attribute
> --------------------
>
> There are two other alternatives as I see it.  I could move the
> "gcc4" and "g++4" binaries on my dev box over to "gcc" and "g++", but
> that effectively changes the default compiler version for everyone
> using the machine.  Our dev boxes are shared, so I don't like that
> option.  The other alternative would be to install a version of gcc
> 4.x into a private directory and set my path to point to it.  I can
> do this, but should I be expected to?
>
> > This is a question of how old software (and hardware) we're going
> > to support. Probably interested parties could backport the code to
> > the old systems which is not only old Linux distros but also
> > platforms like old Windows versions.
> >
> > For the officially built binaries which are supposed to be
> > certified I think gcc 4.x is the right choice because soon it may
> > happen that some platforms won't include even compatibility
> > packages of libstdc++.so.5. For the unofficial distribution builds
> > which insist on using 3.x (if they exist at all) they may send us
> > patches to enable building on 3.x if they encounter problems.
> >
> >> I ran into this playing with Harmony on OLPC, and a developer
> >> expressed a little surprise that we were still using 3.x.  I don't
> >> follow the gcc ecosystem at all, so I don't know what issues there
> >> are w/ 4.x, and why we wouldn't move forward to it as a general
> >> (not strict) policy.
> >
> > I am surprised too. I tried to push moving to gcc 4.x because I use
> > it on all systems and we've had cases when code which compiles on
> > 3.x failed to compiled on 4.x because of more strict syntax checks.

-- 
Alexei Zakharov,
Intel ESSD

Mime
View raw message