Re: Remove USE_GCC_RUNTIME?

[Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>]

nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost> writes:

> On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 09:59:16AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> > My intention is that any package built using a gcc from pkgsrc
>> > should have an explicit dependency on the corresponding gccX-libs.
>> 
>> That seems slightly overbroad, in that it seems theoretically possible
>> it wouldn't have to, but it also seems vastly simplifying and that the
>> amount of over-depending is tiny compared to the human cost of dealing
>> with the bugs from underdepending.  And, once one starts using gccN, the
>> odds that somethhing on your system will depend on gccN-libs is nearly
>> unity anyway, so the actual number of cases where gccN-libs is needed on
>> a system compared to now should be tiny.
>
> How about only forcing it when USE_LANGUAGES contains c++?

That seems ok to me.  I suspect we may come to understand more, and have
to tweak.  But right now, I feel that we are not on solid ground, and
your proposed shift puts us in what I feel is a better spot.

> I am unsure how the ABI stability of ordinary libgcc works.

Me too, but I do not recall recall the usual suspects saying they are
shocked, shocked, to find an ABI break.

> For libstdc++ it's obviously a problem.

And, it's even more obvious that assuming it is not a problem is
unsound, and that is really the point.