[Buildroot] [PATCH v4 08/15] package/gcc: switch to gcc 8.x as the default

[Romain Naour]

Hi Arnout, All,

Le 26/06/2019 à 00:25, Arnout Vandecappelle a écrit :
> 
> 
> On 23/06/2019 18:21, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 00:35:38 +0200
>> Romain Naour <romain.naour at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Arnout: do you still think gcc 4.9 is needed at this point ? If it is
>>>> the case, should we keep gcc 4.9, but drop gcc 5 and 6 ?  
>>>
>>> Currently glibc >= 2.29 needs gcc >= 5 on all architectures.
>>> So we can only build a toolchain with gcc 4.9 with uClibc and musl.
>>> The upcoming release of glibc will require at least gcc 6.2 on all architectures
>>> [1].
>>>
>>> If a toolchain with gcc 4.9 is really needed, it can be build with the 2019.02
>>> LTS version.
>>
>> So, Peter said for the next LTS (2020.02), we probably want to have
>> removed the oldest gcc versions (4.9, 5 and 6, most likely).
> 
>  Yes indeed, we can't keep 4.9 around indefinitely, so let's drop it and 5 and 6
> as well, leaving just the three most recent ones: 7, 8, 9.

Note: gcc 5 is still used by beaglebone_qt5_defconfig in order to test the SGX
PowerVR GPU using TI's sgx demo package.
This defconfig doesn't seems maintained for a long time (compared to
beaglebone_defconfig). I'm adding Lothar Felten in Cc.

Lothar: it would be great if you can have a look at this defconfig and try to
use gcc 8 (or at least gcc 7).

> 
> 
>>> Thomas, I have the same question about gdb 7.12.x.
>>
>> I think we should also drop it. I was keeping it because it was the
>> last gdb version that could be built with a toolchain that doesn't have
>> C++11 support. But well, C++11 is there since gcc 4.8, so let's assume
>> most sane people have moved their distribution to a version that has
>> gcc 4.8 at least.
>>
>> So on my side, green light to drop gdb 7.12.
> 
>  For gdb, does it actually make sense to keep multiple versions?

It would make the maintenance easier...

Best regards,
Romain

> 
>  Regards,
>  Arnout
> 
> _______________________________________________
> buildroot mailing list
> buildroot at busybox.net
> http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot
>