<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><div> > obsolete</div><div><br></div><div><br>I meant, gcc 4.9 might not target Alpha/OSF, but gcc 4.5 might.</div><div><br></div><div><br> > OpenBSD gcc 4.2.</div><div><br></div><div><br>True -- we could take the OpenBSD port of gcc 4.7 or such and apply those patches.<br>In fact...</div><div><br></div><div><br> 1) most of the patches are to the driver, that we don't use<br> Things like building with #define __OpenBSD__ and making size_t == unsigned long or unsigned int.</div><div><br></div><div><br> 2) Maybe I'm doing this. I recall checking patch files and applying them either<br> at build time or commiting those.</div><div><br></div><div><br> 3) Really, you know, from a compiler backend point of view, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD,<br> all the same thing -- same ABI, same x86 instructions, same object file format.<br> Various targets collapse down to fewer. So we don't always need the patches.<br> But then something like ARM_DARWIN, which I never got fully working, those<br> might be some more serious patches.</div><div><br></div><div><br> 4.2 might also be Apple or Interix related. I'll have to look. </div><div><br></div><div> We could probably also getting away with such things as:<br> OpenBSD, Interix, ARM_DARWIN: C backend only, if even that<br> I do have to restore it to working. It was totally working. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div> Anyway, point taken/reminded -- we should see about pruning. <br> I just get nervous, you know, I'm not a CVS or git expert -- how do I get back the old stuff?</div><div><br></div><div><br> > xz vs. gzip</div><div><br></div><div><br> Does the ports system now download from github? Cool.<br> gzip is much faster for compression.</div><div><br></div><div><br> - Jay<br><br><br><br><br></div><div>> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:10:07 +0200<br>> From: adacore@marino.st<br>> To: jay.krell@cornell.edu; m3devel@elegosoft.com<br>> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Are all 5 gcc branches used?<br>> <br>> On 6/3/2015 20:04, Jay K wrote:<br>> > If gcc obsoletes targets we want to keep, we could keep the old<br>> > versions. Not super useful given our usage levels.<br>> <br>> It has. gcc-4.7 is a closed branch. Only gcc 4.8 and later are not<br>> obsolete by that definition, so all 5 of these are obsolete.<br>> <br>> I would definitely encourage to prune as many of these as possible. I<br>> could probably challenge OpenBSD as well, e.g. Assuming you saying "4.2"<br>> based on the base compiler, why are you assuming it must be built by<br>> base compiler?<br>> <br>> By definition, the base compiler is only required to build base. There<br>> are much newer and well maintained versions of gcc in openbsd ports<br>> tree. There's no reason a ports compiler couldn't be used (I assume<br>> this is actually common).<br>> <br>> > Try xz instead of gzip, maybe it halves the size?<br>> <br>> I can't influence github's API. It is what it is.<br>> <br>> John<br></div> </div></body>
</html>