From owner-freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org Fri Feb 3 19:59:08 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-toolchain@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 016FDCCE5B1 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:59:08 +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 E528EC64 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:59:07 +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 v13Jx7cM021345 for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2017 19:59:07 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 216707] exp-run: Update lang/gcc from GCC 4.9 to GCC 5 Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 19:59:08 +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: New 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-toolchain@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Maintenance of FreeBSD's integrated toolchain List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2017 19:59:08 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216707 --- Comment #4 from Gerald Pfeifer --- (In reply to Pedro F. Giffuni from comment #3) > This said, why not jump directly to GCC6 instead of GCC5? In my experience every GCC update runs into a number of broken ports (usually software not compliant with C or C++ standards or those "cleverly" using -Werror and then triggering new warnings).=20=20 While going from 4.9 to 6 would not double that number over going to 6, I guess it would be at least 50% or more above. (See the dependencies in PR 196712 for how much pain that last update was.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=