From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Subject: Re: GCC bootstrap failure on ARM
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 17:23:03 +0200
Message-ID: <87bn0b1two.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <87h9dxukjm.fsf@gnu.org> <20160526165952.GA6576@solar>
	<87zirajjbk.fsf@gnu.org> <20160531193337.GA22008@solar>
	<87h9ddksi4.fsf_-_@gnu.org> <87ziqy3c4j.fsf@gnu.org>
	<87y43qu8yw.fsf@netris.org>
	<CAL1_im=-w0VYY_b3JwZ7FOoF6VZexeyJh=w0AQG+QZ0wc5cx-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<87r39hc1kz.fsf@netris.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35975)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1beOP0-0006mF-9O
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:23:14 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ludo@gnu.org>) id 1beOOx-000086-20
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 29 Aug 2016 11:23:10 -0400
In-Reply-To: <87r39hc1kz.fsf@netris.org> (Mark H. Weaver's message of "Sun, 21
	Aug 2016 16:24:28 -0400")
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org>
Cc: Guix-devel <guix-devel@gnu.org>

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> skribis:

> David Craven <david@craven.ch> writes:
>
>> I can help fixing package regressions if someone gets the ball
>> rolling. Is there a reason to upgrade to gcc 5 or does it make sense
>> to jump to gcc 6 directly? If I understand correctly most of the work
>> required for an update to gcc 5 has already been done?
>
> Until the bootstrapping problem on ARM is fixed, we can't do any of
> this.  At the moment, that's blocking us from even updating to 4.9.4,
> nevermind 5 or 6.  If you want to help us upgrade our default GCC,
> investigating that problem would be the best way.

It might be that fixing bootstrap with GCC 5 (or 6) or ARM wouldn=E2=80=99t=
 be
much harder than with 4.9.

For the record, this is how far I got with GCC 5:

  https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D71399

It=E2=80=99s intimidating, but if several of us give it a try, we may get b=
etter
ideas.

Cheers,
Ludo=E2=80=99.