From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gustavo Zacarias Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 18:14:06 -0300 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH] gcc: add gcc 5.2.0 In-Reply-To: <20150716231024.656693cb@free-electrons.com> References: <1437079928-9591-1-git-send-email-gustavo@zacarias.com.ar> <20150716225639.14772165@free-electrons.com> <55A81B35.2040200@zacarias.com.ar> <20150716231024.656693cb@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <55A81E9E.8000103@zacarias.com.ar> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net On 16/07/15 18:10, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Gah, not the sort of thing you would expect from a bug fix release :-/ > >> Do we still want to step on 5.1 considering this? > > Then I'm not sure obviously. I see two options here: > > * Switch to the policy where we support only one 5.x version at a time > (option named BR2_GCC_VERSION_5_X), and keep 5.1 for now until 5.3 > is released, hopefully fixing the major bugs. > > * Package gcc 5.2 separately from 5.1. But it's pretty useless to > offer as a package a compiler that is not even capable of building a > kernel that boots. > > Opinions? I was going to go for what you've said until i saw the size delta and issue, and opted for this approach, but i'm open to votes/suggestions as well. Maybe skipping 5.2.0 for the time? Regards.