Pale Moon forum

I have updated the Linux Build Instructions for Pale Moon to include an easy to read table listing GCC versions and their status for building UXP Applications on the linux.

This includes the version, the current status, and any relevant notes. We hope this will put an end to idle speculation and any future drive-by incomplete patches such as recently attempted by a pushy Gentoo Ricer Freak.

We are well aware of the current state and in the past year or so have been working to improve our compiler compatibility so we don't get into a situation of being stuck on any single old version like back in the day. However, new compiler versions take time to properly test and validate and even if things SEEM fine on the surface only tangible usage over time will tell for sure.

Alma Linux released ~2 months ago, is there any progress on OFFICIAL support?

What kind of OFFICIAL Linux support are you referring to?
With Linux, you can use the mainline binaries as published on the website. That is regardless of which of the hundreds of flavours of Linux you are using.

If your Linux is exotic in some way that makes mainline binaries not work properly, you are usually on your own.
If you use pre-releases or betas of an o.s., you are usually on your own.
If you build from source yourself, you are usually on your own.

You can always ask other community members for help if you run into issues on Linux, but we can obviously not provide much in ways of support for things we haven't built ourselves. Support for linux depends very much on the nature of the problem (is it a systemic issue with our code or is it distro-specific, etc.?)

Sorry, should have been more specific.

I meant compatibility with GCC11, it currently says pending support with note "Waiting for AlmaLinux 8.5."

"Unofficial way" of building with GCC11 is that the patch from issue #1804 (linked in original post) works (It also works for Basilisk, or rather Serpent and Ambassador, I tested it), by official I meant if anyone has looked at including that patch (or some other way) to make building with GCC11 possible without any source code modification.

It's low on our priority list at the moment. I believe gcc11 requires at least a few code changes to work correctly and it's certainly not been tested. So it's experimental at best.

This is what happens when projects get attacked and have to reprioritize things.

And once again... if you build from source, you are pretty much on your own. That includes using an untested compiler.

Thanks for (updated a bit) official stance. GCC12 release is around the corner, I hope it won't break too much. :/

Well as long as the attitude is "go faster™" then expect "official" support to lag behind as much or as little time we can actually dedicate to their pushing of new versions.

Moonchild wrote: ↑

2022-01-15, 17:08

I believe gcc11 requires at least a few code changes to work correctly

It does. I build from source and during the last update I had accidentally left GCC 11 as the main compiler (the distro switched to it some time ago but I also have GCC 10 installed) and it wouldn't even start compiling.