| 1 |
Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> skribis: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 23 May 2015 15:47:04 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Martin Vaeth <martin@×××××.de> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > My experience is quite the opposite: With graphite, I had |
| 7 |
> > many random crashes (and seldom also unexplainable compiler |
| 8 |
> > errors which vanish without graphite). |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> My whole system has been compiled with graphite since its introduction |
| 12 |
> and I've never seen any problems. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Well, to my mind, the biggest problem with graphite is how it is |
| 15 |
dependent on libraries with funny names. Thus one should always, I |
| 16 |
think, at least keep a compiler of _some_ reliable version around |
| 17 |
compiled without it, and capable of building other gcc versions. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
I tend to keep quite a few gcc versions around, but then I like to |
| 20 |
program and occasionally to test on different versions. Also, being |
| 21 |
conservative, I generally use a newer version for development than for |
| 22 |
building my system. I do not move my system compiler to a new version |
| 23 |
just because I installed that version. One can always set the compiler |
| 24 |
per-package via /etc/portage files. |
Archives