On Wednesday 23 May 2012 17:11:53 Michael Hope wrote:
On 24 May 2012 02:16, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2012 04:17:51 Richard Guenther wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 09:56:31 Richard Earnshaw wrote:
[...] This is a behaviour change. It would need RM approval for a release branch.
R.
There was agreement by all pushing for the change to use it. So, let's ask the release managers about their opinion,
I'm ok with the change - but of course only to carry one less patch in our local tree. What do others think? It would definitely (anyway) need documenting in changes.html (for both 4.7.1 and 4.8).
i've done this for Gentoo and 4.5.0+, so if all the distros are going to be doing this in 4.7.x anyways, makes sense to me to do it in the official branch.
Agreed. Google have done it for their 4.6, Fedora have done it for 4.7 (?), and we've done it for Linaro GCC 4.6 and 4.7.
My concern is that a point release of GCC would stop working against the latest release of GLIBC.
I'm happy to prepare a backport to GCC 4.6, GCC 4.7, and GLIBC 2.15 so the next set of point releases will all work with each other. This would match what the distros are doing.
http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/gcc/4.6.3/gentoo/33_all_armhf... http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/gcc/4.7.0/gentoo/33_all_armhf... http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/glibc/2.15/6226_all_arm-glibc... -mike