From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Efraim Flashner Subject: Re: Why is GCL built with gcc@4.9? Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 22:33:48 +0200 Message-ID: <20181213203348.GA3468@macbook41> References: <87k1ke81b9.fsf@netris.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58741) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gXXgF-0001ge-LH for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:34:00 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gXXgB-0005ST-93 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:33:59 -0500 Received: from flashner.co.il ([178.62.234.194]:44596) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gXXgB-0005IZ-1F for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2018 15:33:55 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87k1ke81b9.fsf@netris.org> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Mark H Weaver Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 12:03:59AM -0500, Mark H Weaver wrote: > Hi Efraim, >=20 > I'm curious about this commit of yours from April 2017: >=20 > --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- > commit 5c7815f205e9164d4b82378de91bee7a65bcfbcb > Author: Efraim Flashner > Date: Mon Apr 10 05:20:09 2017 +0300 >=20 > gnu: gcl: Build with gcc@4.9. > =20 > * gnu/packages/lisp.scm (gcl)[native-inputs]: Add gcc@4.9. > --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- >=20 > Do you remember why you did this? There's no explanation in the > comments, nor in the commit log, nor in the 'bug-guix' or 'guix-devel' > email archives from around that time. >=20 > I'd like to remove it, and I've verified that on x86_64-linux, GCL > builds successfully with the default compiler. >=20 > In general, it would be good to include comments with rationale for > workarounds like this, so that we have some idea of when the workaround > can be removed, and what tests we must do to ensure that the original > problem has been addressed. >=20 > Thanks, > Mark I looked through the commits and I'm not sure why I added gcc@4.9. When did we change our default gcc from 4.9 to 5? I've made one attempt so far at building on aarch64-linux without gcc@4.9 and I got a core-dump but I haven't built it recently to see if it does that as-is. I'll take a closer look at it and try to see what's up. --=20 Efraim Flashner =D7=90=D7=A4=D7=A8=D7=99=D7=9D = =D7=A4=D7=9C=D7=A9=D7=A0=D7=A8 GPG key =3D A28B F40C 3E55 1372 662D 14F7 41AA E7DC CA3D 8351 Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAlwSwikACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1ERJg//RV4aqNfiT28TwRKkmDUz5Nl/wM/U/3++2ykDCtOaJCZbt23CYat2jVpc Ux5v2XmzAfb9DaJEiqKodvLaxHcDQ5gSbTJzDHLFfs97XPj6ZOepQIUTwU3uuTIP m1lfEPHzq3l34IY/tWG7i70YSz31LFvBJuR2pc/OojHGn/MYB61j656ivi5Rn2CE sOaYhxC65gIp6GeBa9AICNRyopoVzc4bzMcLfdUYDQtpQs1+RbrzzJHkMEGXUrEf UBp+cGBlPPZav7eg3MOXqC8M2ZcRCQ+TrFKH1Um7hGnsY+KA4ny5RBYJi+CVpPLq qvFTSRtiHyyD/OUsBZndm4ZFFA9wxMICT1UYpyMWMT51Ie0CAV341XaRuZRPdjar s9rNNjUWXUbOh1I9XGYArldiylP0DQVdcNDxx5wjxbvGurSSKx0V+qD9uP7cQfyV Dx3Sx1m3wkzoK7hRVNBsBHEFiX0Uw2wcEJPT0DA24Oe+1eKfeMlhnsqTrSKXTzY+ MWruqGAiC3jXQMc5HBAIVfw+xk2b1keIGhzeEASfH2gH/dLAp2Ra+eFVtpb7UEtD zxcsHginYbK2QR+99GAxeypZU5I7DL7/rV9kQON6e9z3EH/cTDOZaNEX/sGtrWlz ksCwAzMfXzGM4JKr9eLp8MU02HBdL7oaLBUlHKF/s8Q9oSu7p8c= =ZknZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --qMm9M+Fa2AknHoGS--