> On Nov 20, 2024, at 05:49, Sergio Had <vital....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > As a daily user of PowerPC systems for past 2+ years, I would gladly remove > all non-Apple gcc versions besides: > > a) the current release (gcc14 at the moment); > b) gcc10-bootstrap (to build initial toolchain); > c) gcc7-bootstrap, if 10.4 actually needs it. > d) gcc-devel, to test the current upstream (what I have as gcc-powerpc in my > fork). > > All the rest belong to the history.
That would in practice leave older systems with only gcc-14 to use as a compiler to build ports, as the bootstrap ports cannot be used for building final ports (abi issues) That is a very very shallow bench that I could not support. > > There is a problem with TFF/Aquafox, which are at the moment (until Palemoon > fixes are complete) the best browsers on PowerPC, but they do not need a > modern libgcc either. Arguably gcc48-bootstrap may be introduced as a > temporary solution. > > If the main gcc is installed without version postfix, that removes a need to > bother about revbumping R, MLton and OCaml which bake in specific compiler > value. > > This is probably what I am going to do locally anyway, eventually. > > Having said that, the concern that something gets broken with a move to gcc14 > is unjustified: it simply takes longer to build an archaic version of gcc if > someone needs it. But why would one? I literally never had to use gcc5 or > gcc7 ever since Kirill made gcc10-bootstrap which allowed to switch to gcc11. > Across all MacPorts tree perhaps 1–2 ports require gcc7 presently. Those > should be fixed or, if the code is hopelessly outdated, possibly dropped. > > gcc7 has no good use. It is obsolete, not maintained either by upstream or by > MacPorts (nothing gets backported), not being able to build a lot of ports > now, not supporting modern C++, broken on ppc64 etc. Forcing people use it as > a main compiler is a disservice to them and unnecessary hassle for > maintainers, since we get breakage reports which otherwise would not be there. > > To sum up: > Right now old systems should be moved to gcc14, without modifying current > arrangement. These two are independent issues. > Upon consensus on libgcc is reached, that is to be addressed accordingly. > > > Serge >> On Nov 20, 2024 at 21:18 +0800, Ken Cunningham >> <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>, wrote: >> Hi Riccardo, yes need your input! >> >> Reasoning for list I offerred: >> >> apple-gcc42 stays, of course. unique and needed on 10.4 >> gcc4.8 … tenfourfox >> gcc5 … for the java compiler used in pdftoolkit on older systems >> gcc7 … current default compiler used for 5 years now on 10.4/5, well known, >> but staring to be a few things it can’t build, hence the pressure to upgrade >> gcc10 .. last one that builds without c++11 … little used, but we need a >> fallback about here, so this is a guess as to a good fallback >> gcc14 … current, has been used for the past year or so as the default >> compiler on ppc (by a small number of people TBH) >> >> If this is to be useful and worth doing, the list needs to be shortish. >> >> Another could be added later I suppose, but would be some pain. >> >> All others would be dropped, (except the bootstraps) as anything they built >> would potentially ABI breaking due to mismatched libs. >> >> >>> On Nov 20, 2024, at 02:16, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mott...@libero.it> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Ken, >>> >>> I think in the past, I asked for something similar. >>> >>> Two questions: >>> 1) if a user wants a compiler beyond the "golden list"? will you remove the >>> ports alltogether or will it just mean for him more compilation because it >>> builds another libgcc? >>> 2) can we start with a minimal list and then "tweak" things if we discover >>> some software not building and add e.g. one or two versions later? >>> >>> Ken Cunningham wrote: >>>> The list of uniquely useful gcc compilers might be as short as: >>>> >>>> gcc-4.8, gcc5, gcc7, gcc10, and gcc-14. >>>> >>>> All those already build on the older systems, and are at least a >>>> manageable list of versions to maintain. >>>> >>>> Could we ask for thoughts and possible get consensus that the list of gcc >>>> compilers supported by MacPorts be shortened to a list such as that? >>> >>> Making this list is I think a trade-off between a newer compiler breaking >>> old code and capability of also compiling newer software. >>> >>> My favorite is usually: >>> >>> gcc4.8 (very good for old stuff... very stable everywhere and never found >>> the need to use gcc 4.2 instad of gcc 4.8 except to stick with apple >>> versions) >>> gcc 6.5 : best "classic" compiler on 10.5/10.6, reliable, definitely to be >>> included in list >>> gcc 8 : first "modern" compiler >>> >>> and then... gcc12 or 13 just because I used them long time and gcc14 is >>> new, undecdided about which to choose >>> >>> I think gcc5 can be dropped.. either 4.8 or 6.5 should do >>> >>> gcc7 has been for a year the newest compiler on 10.5 for me, but can it be >>> replaced by 6.5 or gcc8? >>> >>> gcc10: could we try do drop it and have latest? >>> gcc14 - I have used it very little on MacOS - but I do on linux and it is >>> very finky...
