csanchez...@gmail.com (Carlos Sánchez de La Lama) writes:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 09:51:53AM +0200, Carlos Sánchez de La Lama wrote:
>>> gcc-4.9.3 has a bug in long double isinf builtin on PowerPC, which
>>> affects glibc versions >= 2.23.
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70117
>>>
>>> * gnu/packages/gcc.scm (gcc-4.9): Update to 4.9.4.
>>
>> Is this different from what we have on core-updates?
>>
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/guix.git/tree/gnu/packages/gcc.scm?h=core-updates#n339
>
> Not at all. I am not tracking core-updates, so I had missed that. I
> will check there in the future. Sorry about that.
>
> BTW, is there described somewhere which kind of updates go to
> core-updates first? Does everything go first to core-updates?
Most changes go to 'master' first and are later merged into
'core-updates'. However, changes that would force a large number of
rebuilds need to be pushed to another branch, to allow our build farm to
rebuild before its merged to 'master'.
'gcc-4.9' is our default compiler, so it would force a rebuild of
_everything_. Changes like that are precisely what 'core-updates' is
for.
> I am trying to understand to decide on whether I should use cote-updates
> as a basis for my contributions instead of master.
If you are porting to a new architecture, I would definitely recommend
basing your work on 'core-updates', which will likely be merged into
'master' in the next two weeks. If you need gcc-4.9.4, that's another
reason to base your work on 'core-updates'.
Thanks for your efforts!
Mark
