From owner-freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Sun Apr 24 17:24:33 2016 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55BDBB1B206; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:24:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:0:4400:216:3eff:fe69:33b3]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mouf.net", Issuer "mouf.net" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05B661B45; Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:24:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [0.0.0.0] (cpe-071-065-239-148.nc.res.rr.com [71.65.239.148] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by mouf.net (8.14.9/8.14.9) with ESMTP id u3OHOM1i076058 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:24:27 GMT (envelope-from swills@FreeBSD.org) Subject: Re: port's svn commit: r413746 - in head "many ports: mark broken on powerpc64": for what toolchains? To: Mark Millard References: <34C0599F-044B-46ED-AF60-0F0E98876E2F@dsl-only.net> <571C0297.3050801@FreeBSD.org> <28FDFFB4-02CC-40CB-ACAC-828BA8E71A37@dsl-only.net> <00621189-D577-4E3F-8BAB-4B315B690209@dsl-only.net> <571CC2F2.2060601@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, FreeBSD PowerPC ML From: Steve Wills Message-ID: <571D0146.5060200@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:24:22 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.4.3 (mouf.net [199.48.129.64]); Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:24:28 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.8 required=4.5 tests=HELO_MISC_IP, RCVD_ILLEGAL_IP, RDNS_NONE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1 X-Spam-Level: ** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1 (2015-04-28) on mouf.net X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.99 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:24:33 -0000 Hi, On 04/24/16 10:16 AM, Mark Millard wrote: > > For all the port update activity (including ruby) I used gcc49, /etc/make.conf being: > > # more /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=perl5=5.22 > WRKDIRPREFIX=/usr/obj/portswork > WITH_DEBUG= > WITH_DEBUG_FILES= > MALLOC_PRODUCTION= > # > # > # For trying gcc49... > # > CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc49 > CXX=/usr/local/bin/g++49 > CPP=/usr/local/bin/cpp49 > . . . (binutils macros omitted here) . . . > > > (I do not know if lang/gcc [or lang/gcc48] would work or not. I > prefer a tool chain with a more modern C++ available but gcc49 is not > yet what lang/gcc builds.) > > > > I've seen notation like: > > USE_GCC= 4.9+ > > in port Makefiles. Also notation like: > > .if ${ARCH} == powerpc64 > > and: > > .if ${ARCH} == "powerpc" || ${ARCH} == "powerpc64" > > > So may be the extra notation in the Makefile(s) in question could be something like: > > # clang 3.8.0 and before is still broken in various ways for powerpc and powerpc64: > .if ${ARCH} == "powerpc" || ${ARCH} == "powerpc64" > USE_GCC= 4.9+ > .endif > Yep, this sounds right to me. I will test this with at least lang/ruby22 and lang/gcc6-devel when my current build finishes, or sooner if I get impatient. :) > I list both powerpc variants because powerpc and powerpc64 both have > clang problems making buildworld a no-go by default and if gcc 4.2.1 > rejects a port for one it would normally also reject for the other. > There may be other ${ARCH} values that would also be appropriate > because they are also stuck at gcc 4.2.1 . Makes sense. > I do not claim to know necessary vs. sufficient status: more might be > needed for some configurations (rpath issues? mixture of libraries > compiled by distinct gcc's?). But I expect that the above should be > better than being marked broken. We'll find this out when we test! :) Thanks, Steve