From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Mon Feb 6 23:01:06 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports-bugs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 648D5CD3A81 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:01:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B9316F8 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:01:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v16N16NG086350 for ; Mon, 6 Feb 2017 23:01:06 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-ports-bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216707] exp-run: Update lang/gcc from GCC 4.9 to GCC 5 Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:01:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Ports Framework X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Many People X-Bugzilla-Who: gerald@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: portmgr@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: exp-run? X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Ports bug reports List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:01:06 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216707 --- Comment #23 from Gerald Pfeifer --- (In reply to Jan Beich (mail not working) from comment #17) > Why not GCC 7? GCC 7 is still in development and its first release (GCC 7.1) is still a few months out. > exp-runs are slow and often contain false positives. Having more results= =20 > at once would speed up fixing similar issues en masse using portmgr > hatchet^W blanket, a win in the long run. If there're many misoptimizatio= ns > or compiler crashes we can backtrack to GCC 6 or just temporarily pin tho= se > few ports to an older version. You've done a great job fixing ports, even while this exp-run still has been going on. Without that, things would look quite differently. THANK YOU! Looking how close we are towards being ready for the update to GCC 5, versus what https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-6/porting_to.html describes in terms of change= s, I really prefer to go for the update "really soon now" as opposed to possib= ly having to wait quite a bit longer. At least we'd then be on a version of G= CC that's not been EOLed. If you are open to help again, I'd prepare an update to GCC 6 relatively soon after the update to GCC 5 has gone in. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=