This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: dejagnu version update?
- From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>,Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: David Malcolm <dmalcolm at redhat dot com>,gcc-patches List <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>,GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:23:27 +0200
- Subject: Re: dejagnu version update?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1441916913-11547-1-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <1441916913-11547-3-git-send-email-dmalcolm at redhat dot com> <55F720E6 dot 7020709 at redhat dot com> <4CB1399A-23A6-44F7-A25F-ECBD953E03A0 at gmail dot com> <55F74C3D dot 50504 at redhat dot com> <F5F4A096-2DD7-4635-9CB2-5A611247D71F at comcast dot net>
On September 15, 2015 7:39:39 PM GMT+02:00, Mike Stump <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jeff Law <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> Maybe GCC-6 can bump the required
>>> dejagnu version to allow for getting rid of all these superfluous
>>> load_gcc_lib? *blink* :)
>> I'd support that as a direction.
>> Certainly dropping the 2001 version from our website in favor of 1.5
>(which is what I'm using anyway) would be a step forward.
>So, even ubuntu LTS is 1.5 now. No harm in upgrading the website to
>1.5. I donât know of any reason to not update and just require 1.5 at
>this point. Iâm not a fan of feature chasing dejagnu, but an update
>every 2-4 years isnât unreasonable.
>So, letâs do it this wayâ Any serious and compelling reason to not
>update to 1.5? If none, letâs update to 1.5 in another week or two, if
>no serious and compelling reasons not to.
>My general plan is, slow cycle updates on dejagnu, maybe every 2 years.
>LTS style releases should have the version in it before the requirement
>is updated. I take this approach as I think this should be the maximal
>change rate of things like make, gcc, g++, ld, if possible.
Yea, although this means that 1.5.3 (a Version with the libdirs tweak) being just 5 months old will have to wait another bump, I fear. For my part going to plain 1.5 is useless WRT the load_lib situation. I see no value in conditionalizing simplified libdir handling on a lucky user with recentish stuff so i'm just waiting another 2 or 4 years for this very minor cleanup.