This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?
- From: "Yaakov (Cygwin/X)" <yselkowitz at users dot sourceforge dot net>
- To: cygwin-apps at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2013 21:23:30 -0500
- Subject: Re: GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?
- References: <51643F10 dot 7000905 at gmail dot com> <87eheixuz8 dot fsf at Rainer dot invalid> <20130410154730 dot GA404 at ednor dot casa dot cgf dot cx> <516599BE dot 7090000 at gmail dot com>
On 2013-04-10 11:56, Dave Korn wrote:
It takes 11 hours on a triple-core machine at -j6 to build and package GCC.
In order to guarantee consistent reproduction I always respin the built
package from -src package through two generations. It then takes three to
five days to run enough of the testsuite to be confident that the packaged
compiler works well. So it'd be next week at the earliest.
While your diligence is admirable, I think some common sense review can
be used here, as only one of my patches actually affects the compiler
itself, and even then only the specs. I'm not exactly messing around
with code generation here.
BTW, in your absence, it was agreed that gcc3 should go away and that
gcc4 should be *the* gcc in the distro. This will simplify the build
and drop the dep on 'alternatives'. Can this get into the next release?
I don't understand why there's a libquadmath0-devel; like the other C
libraries, this should just be part of gcc-core. This was only
necessary for libstdc++, and only so long as .la files were included.
IIRC we agreed to remove them, but your reason for not doing so in the
.cygport isn't clear to me.
Also, could you please explain the reasons for the ehdebug, execstack,
and shared-libgcc patches?