[arch-dev-public] Moving gcc7 into [community] for CUDA
Hey, I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0]) into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54. I tried to make it work with current gcc but to no avail. In earlier releases of cuda the incompatibilities could be patched with header hacks but not this time. I tested the whole setup with cuda 9.2 locally and it seems to work fine. I just want to get somebody's ok on this as apparently not everyone is stoked about having yet another old version of gcc in there for some time. Sven [0] https://git.archlinux.org/svntogit/packages.git/commit/trunk?h=packages/gcc&id=44e0a03db1b5cabf6135f194e540d513cf959245
On 29/05/18 11:00, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey,
I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0]) into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54.
I tried to make it work with current gcc but to no avail. In earlier releases of cuda the incompatibilities could be patched with header hacks but not this time. I tested the whole setup with cuda 9.2 locally and it seems to work fine.
I just want to get somebody's ok on this as apparently not everyone is stoked about having yet another old version of gcc in there for some time.
Sven
OK to add gcc7 given it will drop gcc54. A
On 05/28/2018 09:09 PM, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public wrote:
On 29/05/18 11:00, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:
Hey,
I would like to move gcc7 (based on the latest version 7 commit of gcc [0]) into [community] because of cuda 9.2 and in return drop gcc54.
I tried to make it work with current gcc but to no avail. In earlier releases of cuda the incompatibilities could be patched with header hacks but not this time. I tested the whole setup with cuda 9.2 locally and it seems to work fine.
I just want to get somebody's ok on this as apparently not everyone is stoked about having yet another old version of gcc in there for some time.
Sven
OK to add gcc7 given it will drop gcc54.
Agreed, we're moving in a net positive direction. We still have two versions of gcc, but at least the old version is a *newer* old version. (We could name it gcc-cuda if that makes people happier?) -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Hi
Agreed, we're moving in a net positive direction. We still have two versions of gcc, but at least the old version is a *newer* old version.
(We could name it gcc-cuda if that makes people happier?)
gcc-cuda will probably introduce a lot of confusion. Let's use standard naming practice for the old versioned packages (i.e. gcc7 or gcc-7).
On 05/29/2018 03:56 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
gcc-cuda will probably introduce a lot of confusion. Let's use standard naming practice for the old versioned packages (i.e. gcc7 or gcc-7).
Sorry, that was a joke. :D I think gcc7 is fine, if anyone complains tell them it's really gcc-cuda in disguise. It's not like we've never provided old things for packages which need them before, so it's just a cuda thing which is fine to have. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
Ok, I'm moving gcc7 into [community] then. Thanks for the input.
I meant to attach the proposed PKGBUILD in the OP. It's attached on this one.
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Anatol Pomozov
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Sven-Hendrik Haase