Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2020 21:07:09 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: powerpc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245511] lang/gcc9: build with base GCC on powerpc64 elfv1 Message-ID: <bug-245511-25139-cWsrjaxILo@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-245511-25139@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-245511-25139@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D245511 --- Comment #7 from Piotr Kubaj <pkubaj@FreeBSD.org> --- > 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.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-245511-25139-cWsrjaxILo>