| 1 |
Neil Bothwick <neil@××××××××××.uk> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tue, 29 Dec 2015 19:21:01 +0100, lee wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>> > As 4.9.3 is marked stable, I guess that's what'd you get per |
| 6 |
>> > default. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> 4.8.5 |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> I'd have to run emerge --sync to know about more recent versions. How |
| 11 |
>> is that supposed to be used, btw? I only run that when I do want to |
| 12 |
>> update everything. Now if I didn't want to update anything but gcc, |
| 13 |
>> could I run emerge --sync and install gcc 5.x without having trouble |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Emerge --sync only updates the portage tree, so |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> emerge --sync |
| 18 |
> emerge -a sys-devel/gcc:5 |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>> with anything else I might install before actually updating everything? |
| 21 |
>> So if I'd never explicitly update everything but run emerge --sync |
| 22 |
>> frequently, things would be updated over time, occasionally? |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> No, nothing would get updated. To do that you need to run emerge @world |
| 25 |
> after emerge --sync. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Well, yes, but what if want to install a package that hasn't been |
| 28 |
installed yet, or re-emerge an installed package with different USE |
| 29 |
flags, after updating the portage tree? Will a more recent version be |
| 30 |
installed than would have been installed before the tree was updated, |
| 31 |
maybe updating other packages to more recent versions because they are |
| 32 |
needed for the new package? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Other distributions usually (want to) update a lot of packages once you |
| 35 |
update the information about available packages. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
>> > Stuff compiled with older gcc's should run with newer libgcc*[0], but |
| 38 |
>> > stuff compililed with a newer gcc might not run with the older |
| 39 |
>> > libgcc*. Same goes, with more problems IIRC, for libstdc++. |
| 40 |
>> > So beware of that. Apart from that? I'm not aware of problems. |
| 41 |
>> |
| 42 |
>> Uhm ... So I might break the system by switching between compiler |
| 43 |
>> versions? |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> That's highly unlikely as software that has been compiled with the old |
| 46 |
> compiler will still work. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
And if not? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Just yesterday I tried to update a Fedora install and it failed so that |
| 51 |
the machine is now unusable because it only keeps rebooting. I expected |
| 52 |
it to fail, just not that badly ... If I could find my USB stick, I'd |
| 53 |
be putting Gentoo on it now. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
> You may find that some programs fail to |
| 56 |
> recompile with the new compiler, but I didn't experience that with the |
| 57 |
> 4.9>5 step, although I had some that would build with 4.8 but not 4.9. |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> I have an application which I would like to compile with gcc |
| 60 |
>> 5.x just to see if that's even possible. I could switch, try it, and |
| 61 |
>> then switch back. |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> Exactly, run gcc-config, compile/emerge the program, run gcc-config again. |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
And what about ccache? Will it use the new version automatically and |
| 66 |
detect that the compiler version has changed so that files in the cache |
| 67 |
need to be recompiled? |
Archives