55 entries in 0.542s
: around gcc5
times (early 2016) binutils were verschlimmbessert with support of new relocations <<< aaahahahahaha.
: i don't think it gcc5
-specific, the patch against this problem that i've seen was written for gcc 4.8
: bvt, interesting; is that gcc5
: afaik there is exactly 0 win from gcc5
+, and plenty of lose.
: i recommend to leave gcc5
entirely alone (unless specifically digging for lulz)
breakage extends into the Ada world << noshit, if yer on a gcc5istic gnat, all bets are off, they fucked the back end
: ( if yer using a heathen gnat, and a gcc5
+istic one, it will output the familiar gcc5isms; but we aint using one )
: the gcc5
+ gnomes, occupy selves with cranking out 'mandatory' kludges for intelism; removing backend support for vintage, marginally-sane archs (alpha, hitachi, etc); gluing-with-broken-glass various incompatibilities to prevent coad developed under 5+ from building under 4.x; inserting 'optimizations' that snake around naive cprogrammer attempts at bounds-constraint; and so forth.
: upstack, https://archive.is/WMoLv
(warning: entomologists only) << the how&why of uboot 'gcc5
+ only' idjicy. tldr: gcc5
silently broke uboot on arm. so the latter was 'fixed' so as to... ONLY gcc5
+. in the now-customary way.
: i.e. i was not able to build uboot on ANY of my boxen, even on the toilets where gcc5
: Logged on 2018-01-21 21:38 trinque: my current wager is folks that had it were using a gcc5
, which is defaulted to a later standard for C
: my current wager is folks that had it were using a gcc5
, which is defaulted to a later standard for C ☟
: in other noose, trinque's pill worked, but the gcc5
.x item was not needed
: tbh the retardation of gcc5
+ dun affect , in any known way, ada -- the rotters rotted c/cpp frontend strictly
: mircea_popescu: principal headache is in re bringing up ~new~ boxes, without gcc5
+ crapolade leaking in; rather than keeping old ones going
: recall, original 'gcc5
is fatally touched' discovery happened on n00bz building rotors
: and i mean, all of it. no gcc5
on the box anywhere.
: mike_c: I don't think it did. I set this one up like back in the spring. And I'm fairly sure it came with gcc5
and i vanquished all the bs by hand.
: i think you can check in /etc/alternatives or whatever, to ensure there are no links or nothing to gcc5
: are you certain that gcc5
is vanquished from your sys?
: this bug seems to pop up with gcc5
: yeah. it doesn't work with gcc5
. this looks like the ncurses bug.
: but this did tons more. I'm going to go ahead and say gcc5
is no good for this (at least on out-of-the-box ubuntu)
: make sure to use gcc4, i've seen problems myself with gcc5
: mike_c: i had it working with pretty much everything, gcc4, gcc5
, clang/llvm. when i build manually i just use dependencies that whatever local package gives me, at which point make Just Works
: though i will point out that gnat+gcc5
/6 might not in fact suffer from same horrors as cpp on same.
: Logged on 2017-06-06 00:42 ben_vulpes: oh christ xorg needs gcc5
: i thought this is what we're all trying. only to discover that whatever, xorg now no longer builds without gcc5
: in fact, the gcc5
thing is driving me nuts too; i've got a new notebook to replace the one with the bad 'o' key (you might remember from c3) and getting everything setup is like hair-pulling.
: this is what the gcc5
folks spend their time doing.
: on top of this, gcc5
happily removes , e.g., memset
: Logged on 2016-09-13 17:49 asciilifeform: even gcc5
no longer does.
: because cpp11 is how folx typically end up reluctantly grunting in the stake of gcc5
: mircea_popescu: so long as it isn't gcc5
, it builds.
: removing boost would be a worthy thing. BUT NOT if it multiplies the line count 2x, OR if it entails forcing gcc5