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.patch
http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/gcc/4.7.0/gentoo/33_all_armhf.patch
http://sources.gentoo.org/gentoo/src/patchsets/glibc/2.15/6226_all_arm-glibc-2.15-hardfp.patch
-mike