From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 101539 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2020 16:14:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 101530 invoked by uid 89); 15 Feb 2020 16:14:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=doubt, H*MI:sk:ebe935b X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:14:26 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1581783264; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=W9I8DQasl4VhgbueddhicwVeEYgHGCEoHC9ZnOwB1JQ=; b=dVnx3Hsi4rnDzWq7h02cZVi0qRmFFZYD+g26AA/abGx1MKu+wazLMhbB9XtX2+s1vfMLad sX21cqSish6+wuyG1WYHYAu7hAypmxTJrn5irDcmoGKuZmlPlZq0OGP9A4/VQtQDHhfVqB 73yb9G0lsga+6a0VYfYaiSoES6vn524= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-44-74crEpUXPUqF9xhw0nvPhQ-1; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 11:14:17 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E569113E2; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:14:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ovpn-116-60.phx2.redhat.com (ovpn-116-60.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.116.60]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A07E8AC49; Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:14:11 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <00f451fc092111eb29a74e5bee0e9b778c3c16fe.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: GCC selftest improvements From: Jeff Law Reply-To: law@redhat.com To: Modi Mo , Nicholas Krause , David Malcolm , Eric Gallager , Pedro Alves Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis , Andrew Dean , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" , "ro@CeBiTec.Uni-Bielefeld.DE" , "mikestump@comcast.net" , "jason@redhat.com" , Jonathan Wakely , Richard Biener Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 16:14:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <2f583ca8-56ea-460f-bcaf-c70108451aa8@palves.net> User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.3 (3.34.3-1.fc31) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2020-02/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 22:18 +0000, Modi Mo wrote: > > On 2/12/20 8:53 PM, David Malcolm wrote: > > > Thanks for the patch. > > > > > > Some nitpicks: > > > > > > Timing-wise, the GCC developer community is focusing on gcc 10 > > > bugfixing right now (aka "stage 4" of the release cycle). So this > > > patch won't be suitable to commit to master until stage 1 of the > > > release cycle for gcc 11 (in April, hopefully). > > > > > Ah I should've looked a bit harder for timelines before asking https://gcc.gnu.org/develop.html. Appreciate the response here! > > > > But yes, it's probably a good idea to get feedback on the patch given > > > the breadth of platforms we support. > > > > > > The patch will need an update to the docs; search for "Tools/packages > > > necessary for building GCC" in gcc/doc/install.texi, which currently > > > has some paragraphs labelled: > > > @item ISO C++98 compiler > > > that will need changing. > > > > > > I think Richi mentioned that the minimum gcc version should be 4.8.2 > > > as he recalled issues with .1, so maybe the error message and docs > > > should reflect that? > > > > > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-10/msg00180.html > > > > > Segher here suggests 4.8.5 instead of 4.8.2: > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2019-11/msg00192.html > > Looking at release dates 4.8.5 was in June 2015 while 4.8.2 in October 2013 which is a pretty big gap. I'd for moving the needle as far as we reasonably can since this is a leap anyways. @Segher do you have a reason in mind for the higher versioning? I doubt there's a lot of functional difference between 4.8.5 and 4.8.2. It really should just be bugfixes. While I'd prefer 4.8.5 over 4.8.2, I could live with either. Jeff