Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2] mk: Rework gcc version detection to permit versions newer than 4.x

[Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com>]

On 02/24/2015 12:09 PM, David Marchand wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Panu Matilainen <pmatilai@redhat.com
> <mailto:pmatilai@redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/24/2015 11:25 AM, David Marchand wrote:
>
>         Hello Panu,
>
>         Looks like there is an issue with gcc 4.7 on my debian.
>
>         $ make config T=x86_64-native-linuxapp-gcc && make -j8
>         ../mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.__toolchain-compat.mk:46
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.mk:46>
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.__mk:46
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.mk:46>>: You are using GCC < 4.x.
>         This is
>         neither supported, nor tested.
>         ../mk/toolchain/gcc/rte.__toolchain-compat.mk:46
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.mk:46>
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.__mk:46
>         <http://rte.toolchain-compat.mk:46>>: You are using GCC < 4.x.
>         This is
>         neither supported, nor tested.
>
>         $ gcc -dumpversion
>         4.7
>
>
>     Meh. This seems to be a Debian specific modification to gcc,
>     discussed here and there including but not limited to:
>     https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-__bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759038
>     <https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=759038>
>     https://bugs.launchpad.net/__ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.8/+bug/__1360404
>     <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gcc-4.8/+bug/1360404>
>
>     Dunno about Ubuntu, but at least Ubuntu already changed it back. But
>     I guess there's no choice but to work around it anyway... Easiest
>     solution is probably just to drop the micro version out, back to the
>     granularity where it used to be.
>
>
> Yes, I suppose so, but then we are almost at square one :-)

Not really, the big deal about the change was to compare the version as 
a regular number instead of segmented comparison. Bringing in the 
micro-version was more of a side-effect than anything else, it just 
seemed simpler than having to cut out major.minor specifically.

So no big loss, just mildly annoying workaround for upstream deviation :)

	- Panu -