Any objections to swapping base compilers to make gcc4.7 the default?

[Justin Sherrill]

The only thing I can think of: can you quantify which packages aren't
building?  It sounds like this will break some packages, at least
temporarily, but I don't know which.

The ideal scenario is to never have anyone need to/care to put
DRAGONFLY_CCVER into their mk.conf.  That might be likely if the packages
affected are old enough/rarely used enough.


On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 4:03 AM, John Marino <dragonflybsd at marino.st> wrote:

> The gcc-4.4 compiler is still the default compiler on DragonFly-3.3. There
> seems to be general consensus on IRC that it's time to promote gcc-4.7 to
> that role and have gcc-4.4 serve as the backup.
>
> Is there any major objection to doing this?
>
> From a pkgsrc point of view, over 11,150 packages build with gcc-4.7.
> There are some older packages that fail the stricter gcc-4.7 checks that
> are easily patched, but they take time to add.  However, one could take a
> page from dports where gcc-4.4 is the primary compiler for pkgsrc
> regardless of which the system uses.  So to summarize: gcc-4.7 can already
> build most of what gcc-4.4 can in pkgsrc (plus some that it can't), and
> users could put "DRAGONFLY_CCVER?=gcc44" in the /usr/pkg/etc/mk.conf file
> if they want to keep using gcc-4.4 for packages.
>
> There's only one known problem with gcc-4.7 right now: The plugin
> mechanism introduced around gcc-4.6 doesn't work right.  The world/kernel
> doesn't use this mechanism and only 1-2 packages are failing because of it.
>  Nevertheless I'd like to fix it, so I'll attempt to do before before a
> compiler switch.  However, failing to do so shouldn't block the switch.
>
> So as the title says, is there a good reason to hold off on making gcc-4.7
> the primary compiler?
>
> John
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.dragonflybsd.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20130201/25ef0356/attachment-0002.html>