Fedora 29 Dropping GCC From Their Default Build Root Has Been Causing A Heated Debate

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Fedora 29 Dropping GCC From Their Default Build Root Has Been Causing A Heated Debate

One of the surprisingly controversial changes being implemented for Fedora 29 is dropping GCC and GCC-C++ from the default BuildRoot for assembling Fedora packages with Koji and Mock...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Fedora-29-GCC-BuildRoot-Debate

[AsuMagic]

Why not something like "BuildRequires: cxx"?

[Weasel]

Shame that they had to make a retarded decision amongst the other good ones they did.

[oleid]

Why not something like "BuildRequires: cxx"?

My first thought, too. It's possibly too obvious.

[carewolf]

Why not something like "BuildRequires: cxx"?

Just c++ would make more sense as that is also the generic name of the C++ compiler on Unix.

[nomadewolf]

C/C++ can't defend itself. Luckly there people willing to fight for it!...

[wizard69]

Why not something like "BuildRequires: cxx"?

Requiring GCC removes ambiguity. Frankly i dont know how this can upset anybody, all this accomplishes is that it removes assumptions that people shouldnt make in the first place.

As for the whining about GCC vs CLang well lets just call that immature. For one if your app requires massive changes because you are using a different C++ compiler you as a developer has issues. Second it is fairly foolish these days to ship an app that has only been built under GCC, if for nothing else Clang and the assorted tools there can highlight bugs you might mis with GCC and its tool sets.

In a nut shell if we have programmers that are seeing a massive number of fixes to build under CLang we have a programmer issue not a Fedora issue.

[wizard69]

My first thought, too. It's possibly too obvious.

The way i understand this is that the bulk of the complaints are due to developers whose tools or Apps dont build under CLang and their fear that CLang will become the default C++ compiler.

I could be missing something here but i see nothing wrong with this suggested move as it clearly removes the ambiguity around which C/C++ compiler should be used. If the requires statement simply says C++ (probably should be an option) how do the build tools know which compiler to ask for. In theory good C/C++ code shouldnt be compiler dependent but we all know how that works.

[Candy]

I could be missing something here but i see nothing wrong with this suggested move as it clearly removes the ambiguity around which C/C++ compiler should be used.

If things would be that easy. Years ago people avoided using anything else than gcc 2.95.4 (that situation was true for other operating systems as well) because they feared that the code generated may be faulty code.

So yes! There is one reason sticking with one compiler. The one that has been proven to be the most stable one and the one that generates the most stable binary.

Don't forget that we are not just talking about i386, i686 or x86_64 here. There are other architectures like ARM or PowerPC where correct code generatin needs to be assured.

So flipping around CLang, then GCC then again CLang etc. may end in different - and in worst case - broken results. One wrong opcode, one wrong thing can cause a lot of issues.

[stibium]

The way i understand this is that the bulk of the complaints are due to developers whose tools or Apps dont build under CLang and their fear that CLang will become the default C++ compiler.

I could be missing something here but i see nothing wrong with this suggested move as it clearly removes the ambiguity around which C/C++ compiler should be used. If the requires statement simply says C++ (probably should be an option) how do the build tools know which compiler to ask for. In theory good C/C++ code shouldnt be compiler dependent but we all know how that works.

Compiler-dependent code means either the compiler doesn't conform to standards (and honestly, when has GNU ever adhered to standards other than their own?) or the code relies on bugs in the compiler. I applaud this move on Redhat's part. The fewer buggy GNU packages in my distro the better.