harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gregory Shimansky <gshiman...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [general] gcc version 4.x as our "default" compiler version?
Date Wed, 10 Jan 2007 18:02:29 GMT
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.


View raw message