Opened 11 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
#43529 closed request (fixed)
Requesting a gcc410 port
| Reported by: | rouson@… | Owned by: | mww@… |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
| Component: | ports | Version: | |
| Keywords: | Cc: | cooljeanius (Eric Gallager), kurtjaeke@…, mojca (Mojca Miklavec), rouson (Damian Rouson), jse.mnl@…, petrrr, ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt) | |
| Port: | gcc410 |
Description
Please add a port for gcc 4.10, the development trunk, which apparently might ultimately be called gcc 5.0 or something else (http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-04/msg00090.html).
Damian
Change History (15)
comment:1 Changed 11 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Cc: | mww@… removed |
|---|---|
| Keywords: | gcc removed |
| Owner: | changed from macports-tickets@… to mww@… |
| Port: | gcc410 added |
| Version: | 2.2.1 |
comment:3 Changed 11 years ago by rouson@…
Is there likely to be a port of the current gcc trunk soon?
Damian
comment:9 Changed 10 years ago by petrrr
In know this would be a mess, but should we move towards a cleaner version labeling at this point? The 49 vs. 410 label is really not ideal, and probably it already breaks some of the logic which is in place.
comment:10 Changed 10 years ago by mojca (Mojca Miklavec)
I would fully support naming the port gcc-4.10. That's nicer and more consistent with clang. But I don't want to know how many ports need to be changed and revbumped if we want to change all the gcc ports.
comment:11 follow-up: 12 Changed 10 years ago by petrrr
That's why I've started with "I know this would be a mess" ;-)
However, I'd guess (would need checking) there are port which rely on the 4? pattern, and these would break anyway. So just leaving all as is, will not come for free neither. Anyway, could be a great occasion to have closer look at the compiler port group, which could serve as sort of an abstraction layer.
comment:12 Changed 10 years ago by seanfarley (Sean Farley)
Replying to petr@…:
That's why I've started with "I know this would be a mess" ;-)
However, I'd guess (would need checking) there are port which rely on the 4? pattern, and these would break anyway. So just leaving all as is, will not come for free neither. Anyway, could be a great occasion to have closer look at the compiler port group, which could serve as sort of an abstraction layer.
This could serve as a good time to change the ports that rely on gcc to use the compilers group. Then changing the compiler names would happen in one place.
comment:13 Changed 10 years ago by cooljeanius (Eric Gallager)
The next version of gcc might not even be called "4.10", so we might not even have to worry about "410" versus "4.10":
comment:14 Changed 10 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Cc: | ryandesign@… added |
|---|
I am working on this.
comment:15 Changed 10 years ago by ryandesign (Ryan Carsten Schmidt)
| Resolution: | → fixed |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
This had been previously requested as part of #43502.