gcc compilers to be supported by Macports, especially on older MacOS systems

[Sergio Had]

As I keep stressing, there is no need to throw away old gccs right now. A move to gcc14 simply means that it will take longer to build gcc5, if at all someone ever needs that.

Given that modern gcc is strictly required now, it is a tiny cost.

After all, this is exactly how things have been on 10.6+, and nobody dies :)

Serge
On Nov 20, 2024 at 22:04 +0800, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com>, wrote:
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 2024, at 05:49, Sergio Had <vital.had at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > As a daily user of PowerPC systems for past 2+ years, I would gladly remove all non-Apple gcc versions besides:
> >
> > a) the current release (gcc14 at the moment);
> > b) gcc10-bootstrap (to build initial toolchain);
> > c) gcc7-bootstrap, if 10.4 actually needs it.
> > d) gcc-devel, to test the current upstream (what I have as gcc-powerpc in my fork).
> >
> > All the rest belong to the history.
>
> 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)
>
> That is a very very shallow bench that I could not support.
>
>
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > This is probably what I am going to do locally anyway, eventually.
> >
> > 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.
> > Across all MacPorts tree perhaps 1–2 ports require gcc7 presently. Those should be fixed or, if the code is hopelessly outdated, possibly dropped.
> >
> > 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 It is obsolete, not maintained either by upstream or by MacPorts (nothing gets backported), not being able to build a lot of ports now, not supporting modern C++, broken on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.
> >
> > To sum up:
> >
> > 1. Right now old systems should be moved to gcc14, without modifying current arrangement. These two are independent issues.
> > 2. Upon consensus on libgcc is reached, that is to be addressed accordingly.
> >
> >
> >
> > Serge
> > On Nov 20, 2024 at 21:18 +0800, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.webuse at gmail.com>, wrote:
> > > Hi Riccardo, yes need your input!
> > >
> > > Reasoning for list I offerred:
> > >
> > > apple-gcc42 stays, of course. unique and needed on 10.4
> > > gcc4.8 … tenfourfox
> > > gcc5 … for the java compiler used in pdftoolkit on older systems
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > > gcc14 … current, has been used for the past year or so as the default compiler on ppc (by a small number of people TBH)
> > >
> > > If this is to be useful and worth doing, the list needs to be shortish.
> > >
> > > Another could be added later I suppose, but would be some pain.
> > >
> > > All others would be dropped, (except the bootstraps) as anything they built would potentially ABI breaking due to mismatched libs.
> > >
> > >
> > > > On Nov 20, 2024, at 02:16, Riccardo Mottola <riccardo.mottola at libero.it> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Ken,
> > > >
> > > > I think in the past, I asked for something similar.
> > > >
> > > > Two questions:
> > > > 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?
> > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Ken Cunningham wrote:
> > > > > The list of uniquely useful gcc compilers might be as short as:
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc-4.8, gcc5, gcc7, gcc10, and gcc-14.
> > > > >
> > > > > All those already build on the older systems, and are at least a manageable list of versions to maintain.
> > > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > >
> > > > Making this list is I think a trade-off between a newer compiler breaking old code and capability of also compiling newer software.
> > > >
> > > > My favorite is usually:
> > > >
> > > > 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)
> > > > gcc 6.5 : best "classic" compiler on 10.5/10.6, reliable, definitely to be included in list
> > > > gcc 8 : first "modern" compiler
> > > >
> > > > and then... gcc12 or 13 just because I used them long time and gcc14 is new, undecdided about which to choose
> > > >
> > > > I think gcc5 can be dropped.. either 4.8 or 6.5 should do
> > > >
> > > > gcc7 has been for a year the newest compiler on 10.5 for me, but can it be replaced by 6.5 or gcc8?
> > > >
> > > > gcc10: could we try do drop it and have latest?
> > > > gcc14 - I have used it very little on MacOS - but I do on linux and it is very finky...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-dev/attachments/20241120/90a92ec9/attachment-0001.htm>