Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 18:18:14 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: office@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 199601] devel/boost-all: Upgrade to 1.58 Message-ID: <bug-199601-25061-vRPB6IMv8F@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-199601-25061@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-199601-25061@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=199601 --- Comment #15 from Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org> --- Deviating so significantly from upstream behavior bothers me, which got me wondering how libe-book manages to build on linux. Surely if it didn't build on linux, then it would get fixed. As an experiment, I tried compiling some code using "long long" with g++48 -pedantic. The compiler warns about "long long", but it is not a fatal error. Based on that, I think I'll try limiting the hack to only when we are using our ancient version of gcc. With clang it is also a non-fatal warning. For ports that prove troublesome, the best thing to do might be to tell them to use a better compiler. I'm currently working on a baseline for a local mini exp-run. I've got 304 ports on my list of boost consumers, which requires building somewhat more than 1000 ports total. I think I can build the full set in about 12 hours per arch/os combo on my available hardware. Testing the new boost version should take somehat less than that. While the baseline is getting built, I'll start looking at 1.59. If we're going to go through all this trouble ... Once I get something that looks promising, then we can do a real exp-run. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-199601-25061-vRPB6IMv8F>