harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Geir Magnusson Jr." <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: [general] gcc version 4.x as our "default" compiler version?
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 00:34:44 GMT

On Jan 10, 2007, at 1:02 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.
> 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.

I had it in my head that you were the one pushing for 3.x :)


> -- 
> Gregory

View raw message