Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

[Marius Bakke]

Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:

> Marius Bakke <address@hidden> skribis:
>
>> Efraim Flashner <address@hidden> writes:
>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 09:10:42PM +0200, Marius Bakke wrote:
>>>> Since we're on the topic, I would like to switch to GCC 6 or 7 soon...
>>>> Are we agile enough to use the very latest GCC by default yet? :-)
>>>
>>> That would be nice to at least move to GCC 6. My aarch64 board is
>>> currently idle, I can see how well it works on my machine.
>>
>> The main issue with GCC 6 is that we need to port the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH
>> patches again.  But we might want to do that even if switching to 7.
>
> I think we should upgrade.  My preference would be GCC 6, which I think
> may trigger fewer build failures than GCC 7, but maybe GCC 7 would be
> fine.
>
> Are you sure the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH thing isn’t already in GCC 6?

I just checked out the gcc-6_4_0-release tag and ran `git grep
SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH`.  No results :/

However I tried cherry-picking the two commits and there was only one
trivial conflict in gcc/c-family/c-common.h (apart from ChangeLog
updates, which were omitted).  Patch attached and building!

I also prefer going through GCC 6 before 7.  Let's go for it, assuming
this patch works.

0001-gnu-gcc-6-Respect-SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH-in-__DATE__-and-.patch
Description: Text Data

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature