gcc & libgcc 6/7/8
ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com
Fri Jun 30 15:33:53 UTC 2017
I think that's it.
libgcc @6.x can service all the gccs from about 4.7 to 6.x, so there is only one.
Too bad we need a new version for gcc7. More complexity, more complications. But that's progress.
Hopefully the broken gcc7 build on older systems can be remedied.
On 2017-06-30, at 7:33 AM, Michael Dickens wrote:
> I'm new to the *GCC* ports, so I don't know why libgcc# is not matched
> with gcc#. Seems like it would be possible to install libgcc# into
> $prefix/lib/libgcc#/ , so that one could have all of the various gcc#'s
> installed at the same time without conflicting. But, then I've never
> tried & this certainly could make issues with linking / runtime making
> sure the correct library is used. And, there's also the redundancy
> issues, for if gcc[4-6] can use the same libgcc then why install a new
> one for each? I was going to try this route, leaving "libgcc" to be for
> gcc[4-6] and then matching libgcc7 with gcc7 and libgcc8 with gcc8, as
> well as installing into separate directories to see if that worked. I
> might still give this a go since it's mostly just time waiting for *gcc*
> to build. Sorry I can't give better answers! Maybe Ryan knows better? -
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017, at 10:24 AM, mf2k at macports.org wrote:
>> Is there some reason that the libgcc ports are not named liked the gcc ports?
>> In particular, shouldn't there be a libgcc6, libgcc7 and a new libgcc8 port?
More information about the macports-dev