Ok, I'm moving gcc7 into [community] then. Thanks for the input.
On 05/29/2018 03:56 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> gcc-cuda will probably introduce a lot of confusion. Let's use
> standard naming practice for the old versioned packages (i.e. gcc7 or
> gcc-7).
Sorry, that was a joke. :D
I think gcc7 is fine, if anyone complains tell them it's really gcc-cuda
in d
Hi
> Agreed, we're moving in a net positive direction. We still have two
> versions of gcc, but at least the old version is a *newer* old version.
>
> (We could name it gcc-cuda if that makes people happier?)
gcc-cuda will probably introduce a lot of confusion. Let's use
standard naming practice
I meant to attach the proposed PKGBUILD in the OP. It's attached on this
one.
PKGBUILD
Description: Binary data
On 05/28/2018 09:09 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
> On 29/05/18 11:00, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
>> Hey,
>>
>> I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0])
>> into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54.
>>
>> I tried to make it work wit
On 29/05/18 11:00, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
> Hey,
>
> I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0])
> into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54.
>
> I tried to make it work with current gcc but to no avail. In earlier
> releases of cuda the inco
Hey,
I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0])
into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54.
I tried to make it work with current gcc but to no avail. In earlier
releases of cuda the incompatibilities could be patched with header hacks
but not th
7 matches
Mail list logo
