This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
dejagnu version update?
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Jeff Law <law at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>, 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 10:39:39 -0700
- Subject: 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>
On Sep 14, 2015, at 3:37 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.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 don’t know of any reason to not update and just require 1.5 at this point. I’m not a fan of feature chasing dejagnu, but an update every 2-4 years isn’t unreasonable.
So, let’s do it this way… Any serious and compelling reason to not update to 1.5? If none, let’s 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.