<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Nov 20, 2024, at 05:49, Sergio Had <vital.had@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<title></title>
<div name="messageBodySection">
<div dir="auto">As a daily user of PowerPC systems for past 2+ years, I would gladly remove all non-Apple gcc versions besides:<br>
<br>
a) the current release (gcc14 at the moment);<br>
b) gcc10-bootstrap (to build initial toolchain);<br>
c) gcc7-bootstrap, if 10.4 actually needs it.<br>
d) gcc-devel, to test the current upstream (what I have as gcc-powerpc in my fork).<br>
<br>
All the rest belong to the history.<br></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That would in practice leave older systems with only gcc-14 to use as a compiler to build ports, as the bootstrap ports cannot be used for building final ports (abi issues)</div><div><br></div><div>That is a very very shallow bench that I could not support.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div name="messageBodySection"><div dir="auto">
<br>
There is a problem with TFF/Aquafox, which are at the moment (until Palemoon fixes are complete) the best browsers on PowerPC, but they do not need a modern libgcc either. Arguably gcc48-bootstrap may be introduced as a temporary solution.<br>
<br>
If the main gcc is installed without version postfix, that removes a need to bother about revbumping R, MLton and OCaml which bake in specific compiler value.<br>
<br>
This is probably what I am going to do locally anyway, eventually.<br>
<br>
Having said that, the concern that something gets broken with a move to gcc14 is unjustified: it simply takes longer to build an archaic version of gcc if someone needs it. But why would one? I literally never had to use gcc5 or gcc7 ever since Kirill made gcc10-bootstrap which allowed to switch to gcc11.<br>
Across all MacPorts tree perhaps 1–2 ports require gcc7 presently. Those should be fixed or, if the code is hopelessly outdated, possibly dropped.<br>
<br>
gcc7 has no good use. It is obsolete, not maintained either by upstream or by MacPorts (nothing gets backported), not being able to build a lot of ports now, not supporting modern C++, broken on ppc64 etc. Forcing people use it as a main compiler is a disservice to them and unnecessary hassle for maintainers, since we get breakage reports which otherwise would not be there.<br>
<br>
To sum up:<br></div>
<ol type="1">
<li>Right now old systems should be moved to gcc14, without modifying current arrangement. These two are independent issues.</li>
<li>Upon consensus on libgcc is reached, that is to be addressed accordingly.</li>
</ol>
<div dir="auto"><br></div>
</div>
<div name="messageSignatureSection"><br>
Serge</div>
<div name="messageReplySection">On Nov 20, 2024 at 21:18 +0800, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse@gmail.com>, wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" style="border-left-color: grey; border-left-width: thin; border-left-style: solid; margin: 5px 5px;padding-left: 10px;">Hi Riccardo, yes need your input!<br>
<br>
Reasoning for list I offerred:<br>
<br>
apple-gcc42 stays, of course. unique and needed on 10.4<br>
gcc4.8 … tenfourfox<br>
gcc5 … for the java compiler used in pdftoolkit on older systems<br>
gcc7 … current default compiler used for 5 years now on 10.4/5, well known, but staring to be a few things it can’t build, hence the pressure to upgrade<br>
gcc10 .. last one that builds without c++11 … little used, but we need a fallback about here, so this is a guess as to a good fallback<br>
gcc14 … current, has been used for the past year or so as the default compiler on ppc (by a small number of people TBH)<br>
<br>
If this is to be useful and worth doing, the list needs to be shortish.<br>
<br>
Another could be added later I suppose, but would be some pain.<br>
<br>
All others would be dropped, (except the bootstraps) as anything they built would potentially ABI breaking due to mismatched libs.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Nov 20, 2024, at 02:16, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola@libero.it> wrote:<br>
<br>
Hi Ken,<br>
<br>
I think in the past, I asked for something similar.<br>
<br>
Two questions:<br>
1) if a user wants a compiler beyond the "golden list"? will you remove the ports alltogether or will it just mean for him more compilation because it builds another libgcc?<br>
2) can we start with a minimal list and then "tweak" things if we discover some software not building and add e.g. one or two versions later?<br>
<br>
Ken Cunningham wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">The list of uniquely useful gcc compilers might be as short as:<br>
<br>
gcc-4.8, gcc5, gcc7, gcc10, and gcc-14.<br>
<br>
All those already build on the older systems, and are at least a manageable list of versions to maintain.<br>
<br>
Could we ask for thoughts and possible get consensus that the list of gcc compilers supported by MacPorts be shortened to a list such as that?<br></blockquote>
<br>
Making this list is I think a trade-off between a newer compiler breaking old code and capability of also compiling newer software.<br>
<br>
My favorite is usually:<br>
<br>
gcc4.8 (very good for old stuff... very stable everywhere and never found the need to use gcc 4.2 instad of gcc 4.8 except to stick with apple versions)<br>
gcc 6.5 : best "classic" compiler on 10.5/10.6, reliable, definitely to be included in list<br>
gcc 8 : first "modern" compiler<br>
<br>
and then... gcc12 or 13 just because I used them long time and gcc14 is new, undecdided about which to choose<br>
<br>
I think gcc5 can be dropped.. either 4.8 or 6.5 should do<br>
<br>
gcc7 has been for a year the newest compiler on 10.5 for me, but can it be replaced by 6.5 or gcc8?<br>
<br>
gcc10: could we try do drop it and have latest?<br>
gcc14 - I have used it very little on MacOS - but I do on linux and it is very finky...<br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div></blockquote></body></html>