Tobias Burnus <burnus <at> net-b.de> writes: > GCC since 4.8 requires a C++98 compiler, i.e. GCC since 3.4 should be > fine. However, who knows when some C++11 features will start to get
Hrm, indeed. > used. Thus, why not using the latest compiler which still builds with C, > i.e. GCC 4.6 or GCC 4.7. (The latter bootstraps with C++, unless you use > --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx) Ah, ok, thanks for that bit. I’ll have to see whether they bootstrap reliably with pcc (did not try that yet, plus I’ll have to write the appropriate target support for them). > (My impression that simply different host compilers get used without > anyone singling out a specific version. If problems with a host compiler > pops up, one can still fix GCC. To do so, it helps if the issue is > reported while the version of GCC, which you try to build, is still > maintained.) I think that’s the key point here: the versions in question are probably no longer maintained when a problem pops up. But I kind of like the approach of having a “stable” version every once in a while, which can then build all later versions up to and including the next “stable” one, possibly with fixes related to that aim being officially included later even when the “stable” version itself is already otherwise closed. It will make compiling almost arbitrary GCC versions easy, as one doesn’t have to build every in-between version, which is still quite the task. And in things like BSD ports, the usual way *is* to start from just a “base system” and compile everything from source, every time, the availability of some binary packages notwithstanding (these are just convenience and not the “good” way to do things). That’s why this point is kind of important. But no need to hurry, I’m asking a bit in advance, just in case this needs to get decided first or something. bye, //mirabilos
