Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:51:04 +0200 From: Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@FreeBSD.org> To: Dmitry Marakasov <amdmi3@amdmi3.ru> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r474520 - head/x11-clocks/glclock Message-ID: <1531914664.994677.1444750728.1BA9F677@webmail.messagingengine.com> In-Reply-To: <20180713135127.GK7353@hades.panopticon> References: <201807121411.w6CEBlZn074328@repo.freebsd.org> <1531464216.1955680.1439350032.7AC058F0@webmail.messagingengine.com> <20180713135127.GK7353@hades.panopticon>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018, at 15:51, Dmitry Marakasov wrote: > * Tobias Kortkamp (tobik@FreeBSD.org) wrote: > > > > Author: amdmi3 > > > Date: Thu Jul 12 14:11:46 2018 > > > New Revision: 474520 > > > URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/ports/474520 > > > > > > Log: > > > - Fix build with clang 6 > > > > > > Modified: > > > head/x11-clocks/glclock/Makefile > > > > > > Modified: head/x11-clocks/glclock/Makefile > > > ============================================================================== > > > --- head/x11-clocks/glclock/Makefile Thu Jul 12 14:11:30 2018 (r474519) > > > +++ head/x11-clocks/glclock/Makefile Thu Jul 12 14:11:46 2018 (r474520) > > > @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@ USE_GL= gl glu glut > > > MAKEFILE= makefile > > > > > > CFLAGS+= -DIMAGE_PATH="\\\"${PREFIX}/lib/X11/glclock/\\\"" > > > +CXXFLAGS+= -Wno-c++11-narrowing > > > > Why is this needed after r474251? Was the previous fix not enough? > > It wasn't, I wasn't aware of your fix. > > > Besides that this breaks the build on Tier 2 archs like powerpc. > > gcc 4.2 doesn't recognize -Wno-c++11-narrowing and treats it as an > > error: > > > > cc1plus: error: unrecognized command line option "-Wno-c++11-narrowing" > > > > I think something like > > > > USES= compiler > > CXXFLAGS+= ${CXXFLAGS_${CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE}} > > CXXFLAGS_clang= -Wno-c++11-narrowing > > > > or similar would be better. > > This is too cumbersome. If it comes to this, this should be added to the > framework as compiler:legacycode or something like that. But I really > prefer for such fixes it to be in the Makefile and not a patch, as it > makes the existence of rotten code more apparent, and makes garbage > collecting either the fix (if the code is fixed upstream) or the whole > port (as unmaintained legacy) easier. Hmm, I'm not sure why this would be more apparent. A mention of the compiler error message in the patch header is surely as good an indicator as adding -Wno-c++11-narrowing to the Makefile. Both can easily be searched for, both can then easily be garbage collected. So what is generally preferred by others? Putting a flag like -Wno-c++11-narrowing onto a port is for sure much quicker than patching it.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1531914664.994677.1444750728.1BA9F677>