Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2020 17:47:43 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@freebsd.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org>, Kubilay Kocak <koobs@freebsd.org>, vbox@freebsd.org, ports-committers <ports-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r528258 - in head/emulators/virtualbox-ose: . files Message-ID: <CACNAnaGrw83tXJiAQ=_iLK1qxQC84K6hi1KmDVHS9oRPZozaWg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.2003222329250.4184@anthias.pfeifer.com> References: <202003120041.02C0fXkP049507@repo.freebsd.org> <alpine.LSU.2.21.2003222329250.4184@anthias.pfeifer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 5:40 PM Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Mar 2020, Kyle Evans wrote: > > Log: > > emulators/virtualbox-ose: use contemporary GCC instead of old llvm > > This patch does not exactly do that. =:o > > > +# machine/atomic.h may use features that are only available in GCC9. This is > > +# a workaround, anyways- we should be expressing USES= compiler:c++14-lang, but > > +# contemporary clang miscompiles virtualbox in some fashion and yields runtime > > +# breakage. > > +USE_GCC= any > > USE_GCC=any allows using the age old, rotten, GCC 4.2 based system > compiler where still present. > > This is practically not the case with ONLY_FOR_ARCHS= i386 amd64 which > this port also specifies, but that is a subtle and indirect approach. > > (Where there is no /usr/bin/gcc USE_GCC=any degenerates to USE_GCC=yes, > so the two are practically equivalent here, but still the USE_GCC=yes > form is the one requiring a current version.) > > Okay to change this to USE_GCC=yes? > It's actually needing to be changed back away from GCC, because this inherently breaks as the qt bits it uses are compiled with llvm and used an incompatible libc++ -- there's an open PR about it after this commit, I'm trying to work out where newer clang is failing to compile properly. =-( > Gerald > > PS: How do patches to this port actually get approved? The log has > hardly any Approved by-s. I seem to recall the situation is that there's now an effectively one-man vbox@ team, and this seems to be mostly on life-support. There is a long-standing PR to push virtualbox-ose to 6.x, but I don't recall if that was being ushered through by vbox@ or not.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CACNAnaGrw83tXJiAQ=_iLK1qxQC84K6hi1KmDVHS9oRPZozaWg>