On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 11:27 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
On Tue, 10 Feb 2015, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
Hi Richard,
On Tue, 2015-02-10 at 10:51 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
Hi,
we are currently trying to get openSUSE:Factory:Rings:0-Bootstrap and openSUSE:Factory:Rings:1-MinimalX clean to build with GCC 5 in the openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc49 project. Once that works reasonably I will push GCC 5 to Factory without enabling it as a default - that will be done when it works fully (help appreciated at that point).
There is a porting-to document that explains some issues you may run into (also consider the 4.9 variant as we didn't transition to that): https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-5/porting_to.html https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.9/porting_to.html
Thanks for the notice! Greatly appreciated. Can you maybe give some quick instructions to the list what a project maintainer can do to get a gcc-5 based are?
I'd like to enable that for example for GNOME:Next, on a special repository, to see how much we break to be able to be prepared for the same (I know some stuff will break - GNOME upstream is already aware of that too). Having some instructions on how to achieve that allows the various project maintainers to get a head start on that.
In theory, if GNOME is fine with what openSUSE:Factory:Rings:0-Bootstrap and openSUSE:Factory:Rings:1-MinimalX provide, you could set up a repository building against openSUSE:Factory:Staging:Gcc49.
Ok. thanks.. that should make it feasible to get a feel for how bad it is.
Otherwise it's not that easy because C++ dependencies you might have need to be re-built with GCC 5 as the default ABI used for classes like std::string has changed.
Phew... luckily GNOME is not written in C++ :) But I'm sure we'll still
be hit by enough other things.
--
Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger