Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-13 Thread Martin Jansa
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 11:27:15PM +0100, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, akuster808 wrote: > > > > On 07/12/2016 02:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > > On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 wrote: > > > > > > > > Personally I was thinking that gcc

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread Khem Raj
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, akuster808 wrote: >> >> On 07/12/2016 02:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: >> > On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 wrote: >> > >> > > > Personally I

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread Richard Purdie
On Tue, 2016-07-12 at 14:34 -0700, akuster808 wrote: > > On 07/12/2016 02:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > > On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 wrote: > > > > > > Personally I was thinking that gcc 5.x and 6.x should stay in > > > > oe-core for > > > > this cycle, and then

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread akuster808
On 07/12/2016 02:24 PM, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 wrote: > >>> Personally I was thinking that gcc 5.x and 6.x should stay in oe-core for >>> this cycle, and then drop 5.x after the release. >> >> >> Wouldn't that be dropped iff GCC 7.0 is

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread Burton, Ross
On 12 July 2016 at 22:14, akuster808 wrote: > > Personally I was thinking that gcc 5.x and 6.x should stay in oe-core for > > this cycle, and then drop 5.x after the release. > > > Wouldn't that be dropped iff GCC 7.0 is release? or are you saying we > should only have one

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread akuster808
On 07/12/2016 01:15 AM, Burton, Ross wrote: > On 12 July 2016 at 08:57, Gary Thomas wrote: > >> Now that GCC 4.x is gone, we're left with (currently) 5.4 & 6.1 >> Is the intention to track these both for a while, or will 5.x >> also be gone once things are working with 6.x?

Re: [OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread Burton, Ross
On 12 July 2016 at 08:57, Gary Thomas wrote: > Now that GCC 4.x is gone, we're left with (currently) 5.4 & 6.1 > Is the intention to track these both for a while, or will 5.x > also be gone once things are working with 6.x? > > ... just wondering where to spend my effort since

[OE-core] Future of GCC

2016-07-12 Thread Gary Thomas
Now that GCC 4.x is gone, we're left with (currently) 5.4 & 6.1 Is the intention to track these both for a while, or will 5.x also be gone once things are working with 6.x? ... just wondering where to spend my effort since I'll have to make my targets (some are very old) work with at least 5.x