From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dan.rpsys.net (5751f4a1.skybroadband.com [87.81.244.161]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD528600EA for ; Sun, 4 Mar 2018 13:48:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from hex ([192.168.3.34]) (authenticated bits=0) by dan.rpsys.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-3) with ESMTPSA id w24Dmfl1016833 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 4 Mar 2018 13:48:42 GMT Message-ID: <1520171321.3436.71.camel@linuxfoundation.org> From: Richard Purdie To: Martin Jansa Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 13:48:41 +0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1520162580-30003-1-git-send-email-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> <1520170010.3436.66.camel@linuxfoundation.org> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2-0ubuntu3.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99.3 at dan X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Subject: Re: [PATCH][pyro] gcc6: Upgrade to 6.4.0 (latest stable series release) X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 13:48:43 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Sun, 2018-03-04 at 14:40 +0100, Martin Jansa wrote: > I'm sorry, for some reason this thread in Gmail starts with the morty > review you've sent, but when I look in my favorite mutt, I see that > my replies were linked with pyro review where you're right the files > aren't included. > > Still I would like to see what's the diff between gcc-6.4 in morty > and pyro and gcc-6.4 which was in master (and there is still gcc-6.3 > in rocko which should imho be upgraded first to preserve continuity). Right, I was looking at pyro-next since that was the patch you'd replied to! I'm not sure why those files are there, they likely shouldn't be. Juro? I also agree on upgrading rocko gcc6, the trouble there is testing, its not the default compiler and our testing doesn't cover it :/. Anyone willing to sort out a patch? Cheers, Richard