From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marius Bakke Subject: Re: =?utf-8?Q?=E2=80=98core-updates=E2=80=99?= is back! Date: Sat, 02 Sep 2017 13:18:01 +0200 Message-ID: <87a82dl57a.fsf@fastmail.com> References: <878ti3uzaz.fsf@gnu.org> <20170829084453.GJ1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <20170830093016.GP1618@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <87fuc8lvm5.fsf@fastmail.com> <20170830201607.GB2353@macbook42.flashner.co.il> <87a82glrlc.fsf@fastmail.com> <87y3pzokzh.fsf@gnu.org> <87tw0nk8oq.fsf@fastmail.com> <87o9qvk64h.fsf@fastmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56776) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1do6RG-00036X-8X for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 07:18:14 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1do6RB-00039f-7V for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 02 Sep 2017 07:18:10 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87o9qvk64h.fsf@fastmail.com> 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: Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: guix-devel --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Marius Bakke writes: > Marius Bakke writes: > >> Ludovic Court=C3=A8s writes: >> >>> Marius Bakke skribis: >>> >>>> Efraim Flashner writes: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote: >>>>>> Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon.= .. >>>>>> Are we agile enough to use the very latest GCC by default yet? :-) >>>>> >>>>> That would be nice to at least move to GCC 6. My aarch64 board is >>>>> currently idle, I can see how well it works on my machine. >>>> >>>> The main issue with GCC 6 is that we need to port the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH >>>> patches again. But we might want to do that even if switching to 7. >>> >>> I think we should upgrade. My preference would be GCC 6, which I think >>> may trigger fewer build failures than GCC 7, but maybe GCC 7 would be >>> fine. >>> >>> Are you sure the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH thing isn=E2=80=99t already in GCC 6? >> >> I just checked out the gcc-6_4_0-release tag and ran `git grep >> SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`. No results :/ >> >> However I tried cherry-picking the two commits and there was only one >> trivial conflict in gcc/c-family/c-common.h (apart from ChangeLog >> updates, which were omitted). Patch attached and building! > > It works! Is it okay to push this GCC-6 SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch to 'master'? --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAlmqk2kACgkQoqBt8qM6 VPqRMwf/Tfd/kFcbgVglyCqZ0bTBP8ti25DM91gToo2PyeFS7fLc6/bWdxa4h8QT 9eJlm4V3QHXaof1yg4GDbfpQhSXpKXxv4m7CNM4P9QE+N/arKqwNjH1hsHaw0IDO 62O4vs+rf9HzNv+loiKPMl2A6PqAOB5sxz7OFTbhP7u5Cqtr/7HrWM+f/vvPt0zg hP0YFlpW+OOg595OfUEGAFDJJkzvBU6tAe8z5yNp5+2BR1hrIyqb3+O1DIwBOh3Y H1kKwT8IX6Zywzkq0xvxAOGO7uD2H9ofjI6oEFKoFRt31/ZvFGH7iqCoOST5Yx6l MbBCZlu7MaqnnDpPliy8ByYdXAJMgg== =JjjJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--