From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Panu Matilainen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mk: Rework gcc version detection to permit versions newer than 4.x Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 12:21:59 +0200 Message-ID: <54EC50C7.7050105@redhat.com> References: <7a06a1e8019a40d4175c6bc2e1d7e62cf956b291.1424261465.git.pmatilai@redhat.com> <1597878.lL4fhc8lIW@xps13> <54EC496C.7050200@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org" To: David Marchand Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" On 02/24/2015 12:09 PM, David Marchand wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Panu Matilainen > wrote: > > On 02/24/2015 11:25 AM, David Marchand wrote: > > Hello Panu, > > Looks like there is an issue with gcc 4.7 on my debian. > > $ make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc && make -j8 > ../mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.__toolchain-compat.mk:46 > > >: You are using GCC < 4.x. > This is > neither supported, nor tested. > ../mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.__toolchain-compat.mk:46 > > >: You are using GCC < 4.x. > This is > neither supported, nor tested. > > $ gcc -dumpversion > 4.7 > > > Meh. This seems to be a Debian specific modification to gcc, > discussed here and there including but not limited to: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-__bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759038 > > https://bugs.launchpad.net/__ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.8/+bug/__1360404 > > > Dunno about Ubuntu, but at least Ubuntu already changed it back. But > I guess there's no choice but to work around it anyway... Easiest > solution is probably just to drop the micro version out, back to the > granularity where it used to be. > > > Yes, I suppose so, but then we are almost at square one :-) Not really, the big deal about the change was to compare the version as a regular number instead of segmented comparison. Bringing in the micro-version was more of a side-effect than anything else, it just seemed simpler than having to cut out major.minor specifically. So no big loss, just mildly annoying workaround for upstream deviation :) - Panu -