On 2016-05-13, Grant Edwards <grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I had never tried 4.9.3, and I'd been using 4.6 without problems
> for some time, so keeping 4.6 seemed like the safe way to go. I still
> don't understand what broke 4.6.
I must have been using 4.9 for a while and then switched back to 4.6
when I ran across something that wouldn't build with 4.9. That would
explain why packages could no longer be built with 4.6. If I
understand correctly, there's no guarantee that you can build packages
with a gcc version that's older than that used to build libraries that
are used by the package being built.
The good news: the emerge of gcc 4.9.3 (from sources) using a gcc
4.9.3 binary package seems to have worked, and it looks like things
are building normally now.
I'm pretty sure this all would have been avoided if I had told
gcc-config to switch to 4.9.3 and then let emerge remove the older
versions of gcc. :)
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! And furthermore,
at my bowling average is
gmail.com unimpeachable!!!
