From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:06:05 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [for-next 3/3] package/gcc: remove gcc 4.9 In-Reply-To: <20170614085657.0d9ab51f@windsurf.lan> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Wed, 14 Jun 2017 08:56:57 +0200") References: <20170525183457.12169-1-romain.naour@gmail.com> <20170525183457.12169-3-romain.naour@gmail.com> <20170526151414.11f2d47a@free-electrons.com> <6c88ceb4-94f7-6018-6d3a-ae3e99c8d44e@mind.be> <874lvjbl2z.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> <65c27ecf-621e-d145-59cd-eef840c20c46@mind.be> <20170614085657.0d9ab51f@windsurf.lan> Message-ID: <87mv9b9hgi.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > Hello, > On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 07:30:26 +0200, Arnout Vandecappelle wrote: >> Yeah, that's another reason: if we remove 4.9 from master, than we will not get >> any fixes for it that could be applied to the LTS branch. But, well, I don't >> think we're testing with 4.9 at all in the autobuilders so the point is kind of >> moot. > We are testing 4.9 in the autobuilders. I rebuilt the pre-built > toolchains a few days ago. We had two gcc 4.8 toolchains, which I moved > to 4.9 toolchains. I always try to make sure we have a few "old" > toolchains, and at least one "bleeding edge" one, just to test more > configurations. Sorry, yes indeed - I forgot about your recent mail. We still don't (and can't) test all binutils/gcc/gdb/linux headers/libc combinations. > Also, we still have much older external toolchains: remember the recent > ICU breakage caused by ICU requiring gcc 4.8 ? If such breakage > occurred, it's because we do have toolchains with gcc's older than 4.8. Yes, but this discussion was explicitly about support in the internal toolchain handling for old gcc versions. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard