From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Mon Apr 17 15:17:19 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@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 2EC11D41E49; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:17:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 103451DFB; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:17:19 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 399FF3BC8; Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:17:18 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:17:18 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Gerald Pfeifer Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r438577 - in head/lang/gcc46: . files Message-ID: <20170417151718.GD79849@FreeBSD.org> References: <201704150639.v3F6dmFD073186@repo.freebsd.org> <20170415125907.GA97090@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2017 15:17:19 -0000 On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:48:35AM +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sat, 15 Apr 2017, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote: > > ... > > Thank you, appreciated (GCC 4.6 is my default USE_GCC port). > > I made a similar change to lang/gcc47 as well and will consider it > for lang/gcc48 later after waiting for more feedback. Nice, thanks (again ;-). > Why are you on GCC 4.6, though? My recommendation would be GCC 4.8 > as the absolute minimum, which was the default for an extended period, > or GCC 4.9, which was the default for a bit less than half a year until > the recent update to GCC 5. Is there a particular reason against GCC 5 > (beyond perhaps wanting to let this settle a bit more)? I always prefer older versions of software (especially larger beasts like compilers, OOo, Qt/GTK, Firefox), because they usually are less bloated and faster (and faster to build). GCC 4.6 works fine when 4.2.1 does not cut any more so why switch to a newer versions? Unfortunately, only a fraction of software steadily gets better with time, most introduce regressions and break things in all sorts of ways (KDE 2/3 vs. 4/5, GTK+/GNOME 2 vs. 3 are probably the most prominent examples). ./danfe