Re: ‘core-updates’ is back!

[Marius Bakke]

Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:

> Marius Bakke <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> 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!
>
> It works!

Is it okay to push this GCC-6 SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH patch to 'master'?

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature