[llvm-dev] unable to compile llvm with gcc 4.7.4

[Renato Golin via llvm-dev]

Hi Peter,

We don't ship proper toolchains for distros, we ship toys that worked on
one developer's machine, and that includes our binaries as well.

Distro validation is a huge deal, especially toolchain, and we're in no way
equipped to even try to do a bad job at that.

Unix is a different world than that of Windows and Mac, and it makes no
sense to force the same requirements, either way.

I don't opine on msvc or xcode topics or design decisions because I don't
know enough to have any reasonable opinion, and I most certainly won't try
to make them more like Unix.

These things are what they are for good reasons and I think we should just
leave it at that.

Cheers,
Renato

PS: I don't mean disrespect either, but we have this discussion every time
someone mentions upgrading gcc.

Maybe we should write some documentation to avoid repeating the same
arguments. :-)

On 12 Oct 2016 11:19 p.m., "Pete Cooper via llvm-dev" <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

>
> On Oct 11, 2016, at 1:46 PM, Michael Kuperstein via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> To the best of my understanding - because we want to be able to bootstrap
> clang with the system compiler that ships with various linux and BSD
> distributions.
> Windows has no equivalent concept.
>
> I mean no offense to linux/BSD developers, but should we have a discussion
> (in another thread perhaps) about whether its reasonable to treat them
> specially in this regard?
>
> Both macOS and Windows developers need to download compilers separately to
> be LLVM developers.  Why shouldn’t linux/BSD developers?
>
> Given that we ship prebuilt binaries for many distros, it seems like its
> easy to get a new enough compiler.  This way we won’t be faced with the
> problem of old GCCs holding us back in future.
>
> Pete
>
>
> (This is probably not a good enough reason to keep GCC 4.7 support, but it
> apparently is for GCC 4.8).
>
> Michael
>
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Why is it more important to be backward compatible with ancient versions
>> of GCC than relatively more recent versions of Visual Studio?  We are
>> removing support for VS2013 because of defects in that product, yet GCC
>> v4.7.x is more ancient than VS2013, so why should the answer be any
>> different?
>>
>> Devil's Advocate,
>>
>>         MartinO
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
>> Renato Golin via llvm-dev
>> Sent: 11 October 2016 18:01
>> To: Sylvain Bertrand <sylvain.bertrand at gmail.com>
>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Peter Collingbourne <
>> pcc at google.com>
>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] unable to compile llvm with gcc 4.7.4
>>
>> On 11 October 2016 at 17:35,  <sylvain.bertrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Those bots should have been the first to be set up. Hope you can fix
>> this soon.
>>
>> We had 4.7 bots for a long time, but migrations happen, and we probably
>> (separately) didn't expect to be the last 4.7 ones. This was a coordination
>> problem.
>>
>> Now, there are talks to upgrade the GCC version from 4.7, but we can't do
>> 4.9 because many stable distributions still 4.8, but we can do 4.8, which
>> has enough buildbots (and will for the long term).
>>
>> I'm not saying this is a "fix" for your problem, but your problem would
>> happen any time soon when we move the GCC version up anyway.
>>
>> Can you upgrade to 4.8?
>>
>> cheers,
>> --renato
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161012/e01b81be/attachment.html>