As I keep stressing, there is no need to throw away old gccs right now. A move to gcc14 simply means that it will take longer to build gcc5, if at all someone ever needs that.
Given that modern gcc is strictly required now, it is a tiny cost. After all, this is exactly how things have been on 10.6+, and nobody dies :) Serge On Nov 20, 2024 at 22:04 +0800, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>, wrote: > > > > 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 should be fixed or, if the code is hopelessly outdated, possibly dropped.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 It is obsolete, not maintained either by upstream or 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: > > > > 1. Right now old systems should be moved to gcc14, without modifying > > current arrangement. These two are independent issues. > > 2. 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...
