From owner-freebsd-ports-bugs@freebsd.org Sun Feb 5 16:07:04 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 CEB0ECD263F for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:07:04 +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 B33491351 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:07:04 +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 v15G74ND021519 for ; Sun, 5 Feb 2017 16:07:04 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: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:07:04 +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: pfg@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-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: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 16:07:04 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216707 --- Comment #18 from Pedro F. Giffuni --- (In reply to Jan Beich (mail not working) from comment #17) > Hmm, not much bustage thanks to DragonFly dogfooding GCC 5 before us. :). > (In reply to Pedro F. Giffuni from comment #3) >> why not jump directly to GCC6 instead of GCC5? > > Why not GCC 7? exp-runs are slow and often contain false positives. Havin= g more > results at once would speed up fixing similar issues en masse using portm= gr=20 > hatchet^W blanket, a win in the long run. If there're many misoptimizatio= ns or=20 > compiler crashes we can backtrack to GCC 6 or just temporarily pin those = few=20 > ports to an older version. GCC version bumps are not fun so yes, it would be nicer to be a step ahead. IMO, the criteria is that GCC 6 is the latest supported version. GCC 7 is likely to be unstable enough upstream won't do any claims. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=