On 3/27/2014 18:06, Bryan Drewery wrote:
> You are not adding to this discussion. I take offense to you accusing me
> of being disingenuous as well.
In response to artificially dismissing these ports as not real gcc. They
are. For the purposes of having gcc alternatives, they definitely count.
>
> * dev-lang/gnat-gcc
> Available versions:
> (3.4) 3.4.6
> (4.1) 4.1.2
> (4.2) 4.2.3
> (4.3) *4.3.2 ~*4.3.3 4.3.5 ~4.3.6
> (4.4) ~4.4.3 ~4.4.5 ~4.4.7
> (4.5) ~4.5.4
> {nls}
> Homepage: http://gcc.gnu.org/
> Description: GNAT Ada Compiler - gcc version
For the purposes of gnat, anything in the third digit is equal. 4.3.2
is equal to 4.3.6. It's usually to have 4 minor port versions. Also
due language specifications, you really don't need older versions.
There is one caveat (binding interpretations) but if s/w only runs on
older compiler, the software is violating a language specification and
it needs to be patched. 4.5.4 is ancient, so none of these are
current or even compile Ada 2005.
>
> [UD] sys-devel/gcc
> Available versions:
> (2.95) ~*2.95.3-r10!s
> (3.1) *3.1.1-r2
> (3.2) **3.2.2!s *3.2.3-r4
> (3.3) (~)3.3.6-r1!s
> (3.4) 3.4.6-r2!s
> (4.0) ~*4.0.4!s
> (4.1) 4.1.2!s
> (4.2) (~)4.2.4-r1!s
> (4.3) (~)4.3.3-r2!s 4.3.4!s (~)4.3.5!s 4.3.6-r1!s
> (4.4) (~)4.4.2!s (~)4.4.3-r3!s 4.4.4-r2!s 4.4.5!s 4.4.6-r1!s
> 4.4.7!s
> (4.5) (~)4.5.1-r1!s (~)4.5.2!s 4.5.3-r2!s 4.5.4!s
> (4.6) (~)4.6.0!s (~)4.6.1-r1!s (~)4.6.2!s 4.6.3!s (~)4.6.4!s
> (4.7) (~)4.7.0!s (~)4.7.1!s (~)4.7.2-r1!s (~)4.7.3!s
> (4.8) **4.8.0!s **4.8.1!s
> {altivec bootstrap boundschecking build cxx d doc fixed-point
> fortran gcj go graphite gtk hardened ip28 ip32r10k java libssp lto
> mudflap multilib multislot n32 n64 nls nopie nossp nptl objc objc++
> objc-gc openmp regression-test static vanilla}
> Installed versions: 4.5.3-r2(4.5)!s(05:37:02 PM 01/18/2012)(cxx
> doc mudflap multilib nls nptl openmp -altivec -bootstrap -build
> -fixed-point -fortran -gcj -graphite -gtk -hardened -libffi -libssp -lto
> -multislot -nocxx -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc -test -vanilla)
> 4.8.2(4.8)!s(04:43:17 PM 02/28/2014)(cxx doc multilib nls nptl openmp
> -altivec -awt -fixed-point -fortran -gcj -go -graphite -hardened -libssp
> -mudflap -multislot -nopie -nossp -objc -objc++ -objc-gc
> -regression-test -vanilla)
> Homepage: http://gcc.gnu.org/
> Description: The GNU Compiler Collection
You only need one representative from each release. They are all the
same branch. Personally I can't justify having both 4.4.3 and 4.4.6 --
to intentionally have a buggier compiler? To support s/w that only runs
with known bugs that breaks when the bugs are fixed?
>
> *I am not counting gcc-aux as it is not comparable to the count from
> portage main gcc*. I am only counting the main official gcc ports.
Okay, I didn't know portage was some kind of reference to aspire to.
The gcc-aux mapping to gcc-release is known if you need it.
> Note gcc gnat is also an entirely separate thing.
>
> I don't know what GCC-AUX is and it's still not part of the 34* count
> from portage there on gcc alone.
>
> GCC-AUX: http://www.dragonlace.net/
>
> That's not official GCC, it's a derivative. I commend and thank you for
> your work, but it's not part of my point.
Er, no, that is wrong. It's a set of patches that hopefully on day will
make it into gcc codebase (and would have already had I more time). The
patches are regenerated with each branch/release. It's essentially a
patched GCC, that's all -- not a fork in a classic sense. Standard
languages like C, C++, Fortran etc are basically untouched.
If portage is maintaining 6 versions of gcc 4.4 I frankly find that ...
unnecessary. (I could use a stronger word here). I am glad we are not
doing that. The cost of maintaining every gcc-based port is heavy,
especially when it's integrated into the framework.
John