[bug#74676] [core-packages-team 5/5] DRAFT gnu: gcc: Update gcc, gcc-toolchain to 14.

[bug#74676] [core-packages-team 5/5] DRAFT gnu: gcc: Update gcc, gcc-toolchain to 14.

[Janneke Nieuwenhuizen]

Hello,

So, I've just built "hello" for x86_64-linux on "core-packages-team"
(yay!) mostly re-using gcc-14 patches/workarounds that I created for the
Hurd.

We probably want to keep this [switch to gcc-14] patch "bubbling" up on
top of the gcc-14 patches until the gcc-14 transition is done, keeping
every commit buildable.

Just opening this bug by sendding this email to have a placeholder for
discussing this, for the patches see "core-packages-team" (hope that's
OK).

Anyway, I have been using variants of

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
"CFLAGS=-g -O2 -Wno-implicit-function-declaration"
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

while Ludo in hot-patch mode this morning used the already somewhat nicer

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8---
[-DCMAKE_}C_FLAGS=-Wno-error=implicit-function-declaration"
--8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

To get build gcc-final to build on the 64bit Hurd I finally created a
gcc.sh wrapper script, after trying all kinds of variations of CFLAGS,
CFLAGS_FOR_BUILD in #:configure-flags, #:make-flags, see also
<https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html> where they even suggest
using "-fpermissive".

Before pointing the build farm to core-packages-team and starting the
"real work" we may want to think about how to go forward.  On the one
hand, having CFLAGS patches littered all over the place is not great, on
the other hand, if we were to add compatibility flags to a wrapper for
gcc, or into build systems, we may never get rid of such a "feature".
Thoughts?

Greetings,
Janneke

-- 
Janneke Nieuwenhuizen <janneke@gnu.org>  | GNU LilyPond https://LilyPond.org
Freelance IT https://www.JoyOfSource.com | Avatar® https://AvatarAcademy.com