GCC 4.1 for 2.2?
mark at borkware.net
Sat Mar 11 12:12:17 UTC 2006
On Saturday 11 March 2006 12:35, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:02:11 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
> > FWIW, I have succesfully rebuilt (almost) all of my packages with
> > GCC 4.1. They're from the 2.2 branch, revision 861. All were
> > up-to-date before building, and the toolchain were first rebuilt
> > two times, just to be sure.
> > Of course 4.0 is safer given its life time - this is just to report
> > my experience with 4.1 so far, which is much better than I expected
> > to.
> Thanks for your report (slim is fixed in svn :-)). I'm kinda
> reluctant to ship/use a .0 gcc unless one of our maintainers is (or
> wants to start) following the gcc development closely (or is using
> 4.1 at work for example) and is able to add patches where needed
> (4.0.2 has currently 109 bugs reported, 4.1.0 has 628).
Fedora Core 5 (which will be released in a couple of days) will ship
with both gcc 4.1 and glibc 2.4 (which by the way have run flawlessly
for three days now) so when patching is needed there's a good chance
finding them in their CVS.
I completely agree with your general view on .0's and also that 4.0.x is
the best bet for 2.2. 4.0.3 is out now, btw. :-)
> However, from your report (and the ChangeLog for 4.1) updating
> between releases sounds quite feasible, so if we manage to get out
> 2.2 soon, I'd prefer to keep 4.0.x, and update to 4.1.1 or 4.1.2
> through ports once they're available.
That sounds perfect!
More information about the CRUX