From: Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>
To: Richard Purdie <richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: OE-core <openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org>,
Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>
Subject: Re: Future of GCC
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2016 14:46:58 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160713124658.phdpvspfesue372e@jama> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1468362435.28829.118.camel@linuxfoundation.org>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1934 bytes --]
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:27:15PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, akuster808 wrote:
> >
> > On 07/12/2016 02:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote:
> > > On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 <akuster808@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Personally I was thinking that gcc 5.x and 6.x should stay in
> > > > > oe-core for
> > > > > this cycle, and then drop 5.x after the release.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wouldn't that be dropped iff GCC 7.0 is release? or are you
> > > > saying we
> > > > should only have one GCC version?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Well, depends on the adoption and migration problems. I don't
> > > think we
> > > should carry three versions,
> >
> > I agree. 3 is too many.
> >
> > and ideally one, but two is acceptable to ease
> > > migration.
> >
> > One makes Stable maintenance less costly in time.
>
> I'm personally a fan of one if we can do it. We've taken a bit of an
> "easier" path recently but it might be time to change that. Right now
> I'm not aware of any of our core usecases which need 5.x, all work with
> 6.x. I am aware of some BSPs on older kernels which would however have
> issues.
There are many PNBLACKLIST in other layers in recipes which don't even
build with gcc-6 and other which possibly have more issues in runtime.
But I agree that it's easier to officially support just one default gcc
and I'm in favour of removing 5.x from oe-core.
We also used to have gcc 4.3 in meta-openembedded/toolchain-layer which
was removed in:
commit 5a5ec1c0607466d0369170c7a3e25ca92d51ca1c
Author: mike.looijmans@topic.nl <mike.looijmans@topic.nl>
Date: Thu Oct 8 07:39:20 2015 +0200
Remove toolchain-layer
If there is enough interest to share the 5.x recipes somewhere, then
people actually using/testing it should do that and I would accept
meta-openembedded patch reviving toolchain-layer with 5.x in it.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 188 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-13 12:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-07-12 7:57 Future of GCC Gary Thomas
2016-07-12 8:15 ` Burton, Ross
2016-07-12 21:14 ` akuster808
2016-07-12 21:24 ` Burton, Ross
2016-07-12 21:34 ` akuster808
2016-07-12 22:27 ` Richard Purdie
2016-07-12 23:15 ` Khem Raj
2016-07-13 12:46 ` Martin Jansa [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160713124658.phdpvspfesue372e@jama \
--to=martin.jansa@gmail.com \
--cc=gary@mlbassoc.com \
--cc=openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org \
--cc=richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox