Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 27 Mar 2014 18:28:10 +0100
From:      John Marino <freebsd.contact@marino.st>
To:        Bryan Drewery <bdrewery@FreeBSD.org>, marino@freebsd.org
Cc:        svn-ports-head@freebsd.org, Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Antoine Brodin <antoine@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, ports-committers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: svn commit: r347539 - in head: biology/genpak biology/rasmol cad/chipmunk databases/typhoon databases/xmbase-grok devel/asl devel/flick devel/happydoc devel/ixlib devel/p5-Penguin-Easy editors/axe ...
Message-ID:  <53345FAA.4060200@marino.st>
In-Reply-To: <ca6d28298fae971cb19d524cc01a858c@shatow.net>
References:  <201403082226.s28MQMtI079354@svn.freebsd.org> <20140327111602.GA57802@FreeBSD.org> <CAALwa8kUkOWQ9fW2VpxsqA97B3antHGob=Hn35H%2BS93Kc1%2Bfdw@mail.gmail.com> <20140327130726.GD93483@FreeBSD.org> <8db20343037cfedce85801350a12fe4d@shatow.net> <5334555F.70806@marino.st> <8e44422e3b6932b6eaaa15d31737b342@shatow.net> <533457BF.8010204@marino.st> <ca6d28298fae971cb19d524cc01a858c@shatow.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 3/27/2014 18:06, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> You are not adding to this discussion. I take offense to you accusing me
> of being disingenuous as well.

In response to artificially dismissing these ports as not real gcc. They
are.  For the purposes of having gcc alternatives, they definitely count.

> 
> * dev-lang/gnat-gcc
>      Available versions:
>         (3.4)   3.4.6
>         (4.1)   4.1.2
>         (4.2)   4.2.3
>         (4.3)   *4.3.2 ~*4.3.3 4.3.5 ~4.3.6
>         (4.4)   ~4.4.3 ~4.4.5 ~4.4.7
>         (4.5)   ~4.5.4
>         {nls}
>      Homepage:            http://gcc.gnu.org/
>      Description:         GNAT Ada Compiler - gcc version

For the purposes of gnat, anything in the third digit is equal.  4.3.2
is equal to 4.3.6.  It's usually to have 4 minor port versions.  Also
due language specifications, you really don't need older versions.
There is one caveat (binding interpretations) but if s/w only runs on
older compiler, the software is violating a language specification and
it needs to be patched.    4.5.4 is ancient, so none of these are
current or even compile Ada 2005.

> 
> [UD] sys-devel/gcc
>      Available versions:
>         (2.95)  ~*2.95.3-r10!s
>         (3.1)   *3.1.1-r2
>         (3.2)   **3.2.2!s *3.2.3-r4
>         (3.3)   (~)3.3.6-r1!s
>         (3.4)   3.4.6-r2!s
>         (4.0)   ~*4.0.4!s
>         (4.1)   4.1.2!s
>         (4.2)   (~)4.2.4-r1!s
>         (4.3)   (~)4.3.3-r2!s 4.3.4!s (~)4.3.5!s 4.3.6-r1!s
>         (4.4)   (~)4.4.2!s (~)4.4.3-r3!s 4.4.4-r2!s 4.4.5!s 4.4.6-r1!s
> 4.4.7!s
>         (4.5)   (~)4.5.1-r1!s (~)4.5.2!s 4.5.3-r2!s 4.5.4!s
>         (4.6)   (~)4.6.0!s (~)4.6.1-r1!s (~)4.6.2!s 4.6.3!s (~)4.6.4!s
>         (4.7)   (~)4.7.0!s (~)4.7.1!s (~)4.7.2-r1!s (~)4.7.3!s
>         (4.8)   **4.8.0!s **4.8.1!s
>         {altivec bootstrap boundschecking build cxx d doc fixed-point
> fortran gcj go graphite gtk hardened ip28 ip32r10k java libssp lto
> mudflap multilib multislot n32 n64 nls nopie nossp nptl objc objc++
> objc-gc openmp regression-test static vanilla}
>      Installed versions:  4.5.3-r2(4.5)!s(05:37:02 PM 01/18/2012)(cxx
> doc mudflap multilib nls nptl openmp -altivec -bootstrap -build
> -fixed-point -fortran -gcj -graphite -gtk -hardened -libffi -libssp -lto
> -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla)
> 4.8.2(4.8)!s(04:43:17 PM 02/28/2014)(cxx doc multilib nls nptl openmp
> -altivec -awt -fixed-point -fortran -gcj -go -graphite -hardened -libssp
> -mudflap -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc
> -regression-test -vanilla)
>      Homepage:            http://gcc.gnu.org/
>      Description:         The GNU Compiler Collection


You only need one representative from each release.  They are all the
same branch.  Personally I can't justify having both 4.4.3 and 4.4.6 --
to intentionally have a buggier compiler?  To support s/w that only runs
with known bugs that breaks when the bugs are fixed?

>
> *I am not counting gcc-aux as it is not comparable to the count from
> portage main gcc*. I am only counting the main official gcc ports.


Okay, I didn't know portage was some kind of reference to aspire to.
The gcc-aux mapping to gcc-release is known if you need it.


> Note gcc gnat is also an entirely separate thing.
> 
> I don't know what GCC-AUX is and it's still not part of the 34* count
> from portage there on gcc alone.
> 
> GCC-AUX: http://www.dragonlace.net/
> 
> That's not official GCC, it's a derivative. I commend and thank you for
> your work, but it's not part of my point.

Er, no, that is wrong.  It's a set of patches that hopefully on day will
make it into gcc codebase (and would have already had I more time).  The
patches are regenerated with each branch/release.  It's essentially a
patched GCC, that's all -- not a fork in a classic sense.  Standard
languages like C, C++, Fortran etc are basically untouched.

If portage is maintaining 6 versions of gcc 4.4 I frankly find that ...
unnecessary.  (I could use a stronger word here).  I am glad we are not
doing that.  The cost of maintaining every gcc-based port is heavy,
especially when it's integrated into the framework.

John



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53345FAA.4060200>