On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:07:37 +0100, Stuart Henderson wrote: > On 2015/08/19 08:47, Pascal Stumpf wrote: > > We don't currently, and if the base compiler is ever unable to compile a > > new GCC version, that will be solved by using a bootstrap, not by having > > another version of (ports) GCC installed. > > Are you thinking binary bootstrap? Relying on that for key compilers used > in the ports tree would be pretty bad for flag-day changes in base. The > current situation where these are largely for niche languages is bad enough > already. > >
True. How about this: When the time comes, I'll create a small lang/gccbootstrap port with renamed binaries/libraries and the bare minimum to compile a working newer GCC. No need to de-conflict lang/gcc/*, and it'd have a lot less of an impact on bulk build time. (Of course, that's pretty theoretical still. I'm not aware of any plans to have GCC use features newer than C++03)
