From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Romain Naour Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 08:55:00 +0200 Subject: [Buildroot] [PATCH v4 08/15] package/gcc: switch to gcc 8.x as the default In-Reply-To: <1892475d-542b-7c52-26c7-193f9749d347@mind.be> References: <20190620100725.105587-1-giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com> <20190620100725.105587-9-giulio.benetti@micronovasrl.com> <20190622214410.4bc6022e@windsurf> <29b577b0-8c65-7038-929b-ad2828ec7495@gmail.com> <20190623182145.459e0154@windsurf> <1892475d-542b-7c52-26c7-193f9749d347@mind.be> Message-ID: List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net Hi Arnout, All, Le 26/06/2019 ? 00:25, Arnout Vandecappelle a ?crit?: > > > On 23/06/2019 18:21, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 00:35:38 +0200 >> Romain Naour wrote: >> >>>> Arnout: do you still think gcc 4.9 is needed at this point ? If it is >>>> the case, should we keep gcc 4.9, but drop gcc 5 and 6 ? >>> >>> Currently glibc >= 2.29 needs gcc >= 5 on all architectures. >>> So we can only build a toolchain with gcc 4.9 with uClibc and musl. >>> The upcoming release of glibc will require at least gcc 6.2 on all architectures >>> [1]. >>> >>> If a toolchain with gcc 4.9 is really needed, it can be build with the 2019.02 >>> LTS version. >> >> So, Peter said for the next LTS (2020.02), we probably want to have >> removed the oldest gcc versions (4.9, 5 and 6, most likely). > > Yes indeed, we can't keep 4.9 around indefinitely, so let's drop it and 5 and 6 > as well, leaving just the three most recent ones: 7, 8, 9. Note: gcc 5 is still used by beaglebone_qt5_defconfig in order to test the SGX PowerVR GPU using TI's sgx demo package. This defconfig doesn't seems maintained for a long time (compared to beaglebone_defconfig). I'm adding Lothar Felten in Cc. Lothar: it would be great if you can have a look at this defconfig and try to use gcc 8 (or at least gcc 7). > > >>> Thomas, I have the same question about gdb 7.12.x. >> >> I think we should also drop it. I was keeping it because it was the >> last gdb version that could be built with a toolchain that doesn't have >> C++11 support. But well, C++11 is there since gcc 4.8, so let's assume >> most sane people have moved their distribution to a version that has >> gcc 4.8 at least. >> >> So on my side, green light to drop gdb 7.12. > > For gdb, does it actually make sense to keep multiple versions? It would make the maintenance easier... Best regards, Romain > > Regards, > Arnout > > _______________________________________________ > buildroot mailing list > buildroot at busybox.net > http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot >