[M3devel] Are all 5 gcc branches used?

[Jay K]

 > obsolete

I meant, gcc 4.9 might not target Alpha/OSF, but gcc 4.5 might.

 > OpenBSD gcc 4.2.

True -- we could take the OpenBSD port of gcc 4.7 or such and apply those patches.
In fact...

 1) most of the patches are to the driver, that we don't use
 Things like building with #define __OpenBSD__ and making size_t == unsigned long or unsigned int.

 2) Maybe I'm doing this. I recall checking patch files and applying them either
    at build time or commiting those.

 3) Really, you know, from a compiler backend point of view, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD,
 all the same thing -- same ABI, same x86 instructions, same object file format.
 Various targets collapse down to fewer. So we don't always need the patches.
 But then something like ARM_DARWIN, which I never got fully working, those
 might be some more serious patches.

  4.2 might also be Apple or Interix related. I'll have to look. 
 We could probably also getting away with such things as:
  OpenBSD, Interix, ARM_DARWIN: C backend only, if even that
  I do have to restore it to working. It was totally working. 


  Anyway, point taken/reminded -- we should see about pruning. 
  I just get nervous, you know, I'm not a CVS or git expert -- how do I get back the old stuff?

 > xz vs. gzip

 Does the ports system now download from github? Cool.
 gzip is much faster for compression.

 - Jay




> Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2015 20:10:07 +0200
> From: adacore at marino.st
> To: jay.krell at cornell.edu; m3devel at elegosoft.com
> Subject: Re: [M3devel] Are all 5 gcc branches used?
> 
> On 6/3/2015 20:04, Jay K wrote:
> > If gcc obsoletes targets we want to keep, we could keep the old
> > versions. Not super useful given our usage levels.
> 
> It has.  gcc-4.7 is a closed branch.  Only gcc 4.8 and later are not
> obsolete by that definition, so all 5 of these are obsolete.
> 
> I would definitely encourage to prune as many of these as possible.  I
> could probably challenge OpenBSD as well, e.g. Assuming you saying "4.2"
> based on the base compiler, why are you assuming it must be built by
> base compiler?
> 
> By definition, the base compiler is only required to build base.  There
> are much newer and well maintained versions of gcc in openbsd ports
> tree.  There's no reason a ports compiler couldn't be used (I assume
> this is actually common).
> 
> > Try xz instead of gzip, maybe it halves the size?
> 
> I can't influence github's API.  It is what it is.
> 
> John
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://m3lists.elegosoft.com/pipermail/m3devel/attachments/20150603/64bce8ae/attachment-0002.html>