[OE-core] [PATCH 6/7] gcc6: Upgrade to 6.4

Otavio Salvador otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br
Mon Oct 16 16:04:02 UTC 2017

On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Khem Raj <raj.khem at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 4:53 AM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio.salvador at ossystems.com.br> wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 15, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Andre McCurdy <armccurdy at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 14, 2017 at 10:21 PM, akuster808 <akuster808 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> why do we continue to maintain 2 versions of gcc?
>>> Probably the same reason why Buildroot continues to maintain 4
>>> versions of gcc, it's useful for end users.
>>>   https://git.buildroot.net/buildroot/tree/package/gcc
>> We keep all user space and toolchain up to date so upgrading the GCC
>> is straightforward.  That said the gcc cannot vary from one machine to
>> another so if a vendor wants to use an old release, it can be done
>> using their distro.
>> I am against maintaining two GCC versions as it increases the amount
>> of testing needed. Instead I'd prefer to have clang merged on oe-core
>> instead and easy its adoption / test.
> In practice, there are a large set of applications that customers have porting
> to do when major compiler version changes (e.g. 6 to 7), unless there
> is a feasible path for upgrade people
> will refrain from upgrading to newer versions of releases. Its not a
> trivial task
> to upgrade systemdwide compiler in any distro. So its a good strategy to have
> two versions overlapping for few releases, this smoothens the migration for
> large application bases.

Agreed and rocko has this; for 2.5 we don't need to provide two
versions one more time.

Otavio Salvador                             O.S. Systems
http://www.ossystems.com.br        http://code.ossystems.com.br
Mobile: +55 (53) 9981-7854            Mobile: +1 (347) 903-9750

More information about the Openembedded-core mailing list