Bug 25095 – gcc-3 should be SLOT'd as well

• Product: Gentoo Linux
• Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX

[Description Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED) 2003-07-22 21:12:56 UTC]

I don't know if this is too much to ask, as I'm fairly ignorant of gcc-3.  I was
wondering, if it was possible to SLOTify the gcc-3.x versions separately, so
that, for instance, one could have 3.2.3 and still test out 3.3 without
clobbering the old version?



Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

[Comment 1 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2003-07-23 15:12:38 UTC]

We slot them according to binary compatibility.  Thus installing 3.3 will
not cause you to have to recompile a lot of stuff.  However, gcc like glibc
is is one of those things that you rather do not downgrade, as many times
they define *new* symbols that the previous gcc does not.

If you really want to have both say 3.2.3 and 3.3 installed, you can edit
the ebuild.  I however do not recommend this, as you could run into some
issues (and if you do, rather edit and remerge the older).

For normal usage (and for most people), this will add to much complexity
in an already fragile environment, and for the sake of the 'bigger good',
I really do not want to do this.

Lastly, for most cases, 3.3 should be fine (just use 3.3-r1, and not 3.3),
so upgrading should not cause issues.  If you however want to update and
compile system packages, rather do and get it over with, or hang on.   Like
I said, just upgrading is fine ... downgrading, or mixing could cause issues
though (latest cvs 3.3 for example have the a new symbol, __gcc_personality_v0,
and its going to cause issues if you downgrade from 3.3 to 3.2.3 again and
you compiled sertain packages [ glibc, gnome, whatever prob will give issues ]).

I do not recommend using multiple gcc's at the same time to compile system
packages, even if just the minor version differ, so marking this as wont fix.

[Comment 2 Seemant Kulleen (RETIRED) 2003-07-23 15:25:44 UTC]

Az, thanks for clarifying :) Now that I know, I am in agreement with you. Sorry about that.

[Comment 3 Shannon Barber 2004-08-04 07:14:57 UTC]

This is bad :/.  If they were binary compatiblity, then downgrading would not cause issues.  Even if they were binarily compatible with each-other, there is code out there that compiles with gcc 3.2 but not with gcc 3.3, such as rpm source balls for RedHat 9 (since the last supported compiler is gcc 3.2.2).
(gcc 3.3 is binarily compatible with gcc 3.2 but not vice-versa, due to the added symnbols).

I think all gcc minor versions should get thier own slot.  If users are playing with gcc-config and switching compilers, then they should know what they are getting themselves in for.