From owner-freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Sun Jul 16 10:07:43 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@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 C90D8BFBAC5 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C3C3747C2 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) id DF3365034; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:42 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: freebsd-powerpc@localmail.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mx1.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C86615032 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 08A95747BB for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:42 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from bugs.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id v6GA7fZS010654 for ; Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:41 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-powerpc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 220714] devel/boost-all: Update to 1.65 (currently beta) Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:42 +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: patch X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: jbeich@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Status: Open X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: portmgr@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: maintainer-feedback? exp-run? 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: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 16 Jul 2017 10:07:43 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D220714 --- Comment #8 from Jan Beich --- (In reply to Justin Hibbits from comment #5) > Kicked off a poudriere build of devel/boost-all now, for ppc64 Can you enable PYTHON option or just build devel/boost-python-libs later? T= he specific port rarely caused issues in the past. (In reply to Mark Millard from comment #6) Thanks for useful questions. > A) a system gcc 4.2.1 based build? Mainly this one. > B) some modern lang/gcc* based build(s)? After bug 218788 non-x86/non-arm platforms may end up using lang/gcc5 when building boost-libs in C++11 mode. For testing try the following: devel/boost-all/compiled.mk: -USES+=3D compiler:features +USES+=3D compiler:c++11-lib +USE_CXXSTD=3D c++11 > D) an experimental system-clang-4 based build? Have you tried if C++ exceptions work on /branches/clang500-import? If "no" then let's focus on GCC for now. > Is libcxxrt common to all of the options? comes from either libcxxrt (if clang/libc++ is enabled) or GCC. _Unwind_Backtrace() comes from either LLVM libunwind or GCC. However, GCC 4.2 in base may lack both and _Unwind_Backtrace(). Whether Boost build is smart to figure this out is an open question. ;) > @) 32-bit FreeBSD vs. 64-bit FreeBSD? Only 64-bit would be fine but each Boost update has medium risk of breaking= on some architecture. For one, bug 199601 skipped several versions and ended up losing sparc64 support. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=