Bug 140707 (gcc41-stable) – [Tracker] gcc-4.1.x stabilization

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED FIXED

[Description Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2006-07-16 15:26:03 UTC]

This bug will be used to track packages whose stable versions don't work with GCC 4.1.x.  In most cases a patch, version bump, or other fix is available in ~arch, and a request will be filed to either backport the fix or stablize a working version.

These arches have GCC 4.1.1 in testing:
amd64, mips, ppc64, s390, x86, x86-fsbd

If you know that any of these arches aren't planning on getting 4.1 stable any time soon make a note.  

hppa and ppc already have 4.1.1 stable :p.

[Comment 1 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-07-18 06:16:00 UTC]

All of the packages from 138099 need to go stable for GCC 4.1.1

[Comment 2 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-07-18 07:22:01 UTC]

Also, dev-libs/gmp-4.2.1 and dev-libs/mpfr-2.2.0_p10 will need to go stable...

[Comment 3 Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-07-18 07:22:49 UTC]

Well, amd64 and x86 are planning on taking 4.1.1 stable by the 2006.1 release, which isn't that far away.

[Comment 4 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) 2006-07-19 00:41:13 UTC]

bug #140905 is not finally fixed, there are still issues with dietlibc and GCC 4.1 on some arches...resolution later.

[Comment 5 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2006-07-30 21:27:48 UTC]

kind of off topic, but i would _really_ like to see the gcc-4.1.1.ebuild DEPEND on binutils-2.17 which adds support for .weakref[i] and properly handles -msecure-pit on PPC32.

if we really wanted to get crazy, i would say minimum 2.17.50.0.3 for the new --hash-style support[ii] and the MIPS MFTGPR and MTTGPR fixes, but i'm not holding my breath on this one. ;d


[i] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00107.html
[ii] http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2006-06/msg00418.html

[Comment 6 SpanKY 2006-07-30 21:35:41 UTC]

that's up to the ppc team if they want to force binutils-2.17

as for the snapshots, not a chance

[Comment 7 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2006-08-11 19:39:43 UTC]

does the gcc migration doc need to be updated at all?

[Comment 8 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) 2006-08-13 23:05:19 UTC]

(In reply to comment #7)
> does the gcc migration doc need to be updated at all?

 Don't think so...worked fine here when using the "generic guide".

[Comment 9 Ryan Hill (RETIRED) 2006-08-18 18:59:17 UTC]

i just finished working through everything on bug #117482 (except games-*).  anything not working on stable should now have a bug here.  between the two i think this should pretty much cover it (for x86 at least). :)

[Comment 10 Chris L. Mason 2006-08-30 04:07:11 UTC]

Can someone with permission please add a dependency on bug #132667 (qemu not compiling with gcc-4.1.*.

Thanks.

[Comment 11 Christian Faulhammer (RETIRED) 2006-08-30 04:44:38 UTC]

(In reply to comment #10)
> Can someone with permission please add a dependency on bug #132667 (qemu not
> compiling with gcc-4.1.*.

 It already blocks the gcc porting bug.  This bug here is for stabilisation requests.