From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34686) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jBvEl-0002Zz-MI for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:53:04 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBvEk-0000Kh-If for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:53:03 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:47598) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1jBvEk-0000Iw-CF for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:53:02 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1jBvEk-0001e9-C0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Wed, 11 Mar 2020 02:53:02 -0400 Subject: bug#40009: [core-updates PATCH]: Use per-architecture GCC for libstdc++-boot0 Resent-To: guix-patches@gnu.org Resent-Message-ID: Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2020 08:51:32 +0200 From: Efraim Flashner Message-ID: <20200311065132.GC26542@E5400> References: <20200310111227.GX1423@E5400> <87tv2wyq1n.fsf@devup.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87tv2wyq1n.fsf@devup.no> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Marius Bakke Cc: 40009-done@debbugs.gnu.org --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 08:21:08PM +0100, Marius Bakke wrote: > Efraim Flashner writes: >=20 > > I've tested this on aarch64 and there were no problems. It also > > provides a nice framework for other architectures as they become > > supported. >=20 > What is the benefit of this patch? I'd prefer to keep libstdc++-boot0 > identical across architectures for simplicity, unless there is a good > reason to do otherwise (say, porting to a new architecture). >=20 > Now we could end up in a situation where someone patches GCC5 on > 'master' and accidentally triggers a full rebuild on AArch64. Sound reasoning. And currently most of the porting work makes use of GCC7 and not GCC5. I'm closing this bug. --=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 --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEoov0DD5VE3JmLRT3Qarn3Mo9g1EFAl5oinAACgkQQarn3Mo9 g1EZoQ/8Cz8rB1r3E08xpqwzGiuHvz89y2b1Ld9n7hGEbNASruSuulpImKnlSZR3 6iLpqaHpC+HISWOpsyFMVl5CosF2xaZ3F3EcveUn4X+kS28ROPUgjV4LcAqjY0T5 8r1syFk1Ep/YIH1vaLdSu9Ol2YeueYmps3qjZ2+CpcS+ZOOxP9uxaiPfhhi+I9Aj xoKTLU5/S764IL3bDVAqbfDPpEuIBtgKqBCdZmHuii6iBaPjZRCZ0jyalKx822a3 Yda9YEPh7ZuX5wRTD19seM9M7y3GggJS5atBLZEhrFy3nfH78ZwM1I6bWRavBCKK U1kxYaIMUnY0zKwfSj7Q5NGRtMR/8tVt21SalXA/LRzdwhBbAyKLtbrXcGmv6nIT E/wsAEs0/uFASEftR8Aedk5UBwHvgaEEe97kXPceSQQWVRoZOgGY2DVGRiYk41dD kKIcRT1gT4yx1SnBwIpNRRadaE4i3yxpY0cDXTMCLXp0Zmj1y6w1LDqz3Sfhu4ET cxauMlkqni1sgdcIvCz/rpRD4oWFVjImu8iqS1eyG0hTp5Cv7KIYgBId5K03cGrv JcSXsJk6mh1XVvsBzxuWsT4cJ38jKmEW6KPkqmmFLxCHxZL5kF5D2WuOvoqhwj6o 3LKxd0g6XccxsKEzesjx8SWg1umakPx3bGEUa/F21krsRYjh0bM= =khru -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP--