On 2024-11-20, at 2:21 PM, Chris Jones wrote:
> Hi, > >> On 20 Nov 2024, at 10:00 pm, Ken Cunningham >> <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Glad everyone gets to weigh in. If we can get a consensus to do this, we'll >> try to do it as smartly as possible. >> >> Any gcc compilers that come "free" -- ie don't contribute anything in libgcc >> and so are just "no-ops" -- we can consider keeping those. However, they >> still might get pulled in needlessly if they exist, according to the >> compilers dependency rules. >> >> For example, as Riccardo said, if gcc10 can build it, but gcc13 exists, then >> gcc13 might get pulled in unnecessarily to build it. > > If gcc13 is available and can be used to successfully build a port, then why > would you want to use gcc10 ? > > The logic in the compilers PG etc. as to which compilers are picked to use is > to always favour the most recent that is available (and not blacklisted). > This logic will minimise deps needed as gcc13 only needs libgcc13 and > libgcc14 whereas gcc 10 would need libgcc(10-12) in addition. So i think this > is the right logic. OOTH: If gcc10 is available and installed, why would you want to call in a full build of gcc13 unnecessarily to build the port? The GCC situation on macports is overloaded with compilers. If a system can use a buildbot, it matters less (although lots of people are in situations where they can't use a buildbot). On older systems, the situation is crippling, however. Just trying to make something that can work.
