Re: compiler.mk nits

[nia <nia%NetBSD.org@localhost>]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 06:50:47PM -0500, Greg Troxel wrote:
> While improving a comment in gcc.mk, which explains that we tend to gcc
> 5/7/10 as shipped in NetBSD 8/9/10, I noticed:
> 
>   The base GCC_REQ is 3.0.0 if we need c99 or x86_64 and 2.8.0
>   otherwise.
> 
>     - Probably this should be "if not i386" rather than "if x86_64".
> 
>     - I guess it's good for retrocomputing to not object if the base
>       system is 2.8.0 and we are building a package that only needs c,
>       on i386.  But maybe we should gc the if and just say 3.0.0.
>

I think gcc3 even is inclusive of Solaris 8.
But I think OpenBSD shipped 2.8.0 way past its use-by date.

>   We ask for 4.9 for c11, cxx:unique_ptr and cxx:regex.  This violates
>   the general "align to releeas" rule.  I could see us doing one of the
>   following:
> 
>     - change to 5 with a comment that 4.9 would work
> 
>     - add a comment that we are staying with 4.9 instead of the plan
>       that says 5 because we don't want to burden systems with 4.9 that
>       only need this
> 
>   Same for cxx:charconv which requires gcc 8.  Comment, change to 10
>   with comment, something else?

Enterprise Linux 8 has gcc 8.

I mostly see value in the "align to releases" rule for C++,
for c11 I'm a lot less enthusiastic. I would like to not reject 4.9
for c11, the usual issues with C++ compilers don't apply. I am also
retrocomputing and remember 5.x being problematic for whatever reason.