From owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Mon Apr 27 21:07:09 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2BCC2C6456 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 499y5T5l6cz4g2s for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) id B7ABA7EC0; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: powerpc@localmail.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [96.47.72.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B44027F34 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 499y5T3SdMz4g2q for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::50:1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7243F18E85 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.5]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 03RL796x083288 for ; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 03RL79K8083282 for powerpc@FreeBSD.org; Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: powerpc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245511] lang/gcc9: build with base GCC on powerpc64 elfv1 Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Ports & Packages X-Bugzilla-Component: Individual Port(s) X-Bugzilla-Version: Latest X-Bugzilla-Keywords: buildisok X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: pkubaj@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: In Progress X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: gerald@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D245511 --- Comment #7 from Piotr Kubaj --- > I understand, yet if that is an important function of the -devel ports > for powerpc as well (I certainly see it that way in general), can you > help test lang/gcc9-devel and push in changes there first before tackling > lang/gcc9 going forward? OK. > Your change does not just affect the compiler binaries themselves, and I > assume quite a bit, it also pushes -O0 for the target libraries. I know that, I can already notice that some ports build much slower than be= fore (but it's just some, most still build in similar time). Another advantage of building GCC with -O0 seems that some ports now build, whereas previously the compiled binaries failed during build with segfault. I had that experience with lang/ghc. It was ported some time ago and built = just fine, but some time ago started failing with segfault during build process.= Now was the first time in a few months that it built. There may be other ports = in similar situation. > Once my patch is in, can you please give three things a try, one after > the other? > > (1) CXXFLAGS_FOR_TARGET is really necessary (by removing it)? > (2) CFLAGS_FOR_TARGET is really necessary (by removing it)? > (3) For what is left after (1) and (2), is -O1 also sufficient? OK, I'll test it. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=