Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2017 23:01:06 +0000 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 Message-ID: <bug-216707-13-uR7Ou8WPfB@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-216707-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-216707-13@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D216707 --- Comment #23 from Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@FreeBSD.org> --- (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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-216707-13-uR7Ou8WPfB>