From owner-freebsd-ppc@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 18 17:18:45 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 846907AC for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1AF3D168F for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 17:18:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so22162002wgb.3 for ; Mon, 18 May 2015 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=VdToHJwaPHefgE8cWN94oXQa+SoAWQQw0R2GIqImhew=; b=L15MEvHk5uK37WexAVTcg5QyveqmAqOHLhGvkAl9PA/uVvlq6MglYCAsIRRSivf5y0 /ucXsNT30TNJ9hkpbkX27xyhQecDSUKSV9PJH0ev2N6D4Zt9yrPCLR2Pa8jUnN9p2lHG wouEH+AuJzIA9CAE87RN+tT7SsY/eEFTcU88WXPjPb7JItotIzIX/xM9ZwQseA2mYbW1 ET6Xj0lsd3jd0v6J8cQ3qIvcU7Byl8CF1qvxQBDD+wGIO3Iu6XbfY9vxggatmLR0m35L U+WaS21jWEDa9wgxR/w3DnVheFtie6wsmiX5ml+q4S+sEFFlIlrdi5QQlVmWZb3plAXk ArPg== X-Received: by 10.194.2.47 with SMTP id 15mr46697896wjr.101.1431969523600; Mon, 18 May 2015 10:18:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.131] (xdsl-205-163.nblnetworks.fi. [83.145.205.163]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id bm9sm17828429wjc.21.2015.05.18.10.18.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 18 May 2015 10:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <555A1EF1.6020904@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 20:18:41 +0300 From: Jukka Ukkonen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is this a sign that nobody has tested 10.1-stable on a 32-bit ppc? References: <5559E371.9080602@gmail.com> <555A0F2D.9050707@yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <555A0F2D.9050707@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the PowerPC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:18:45 -0000 On 05/18/15 19:11, Benjamin Brink via freebsd-ppc wrote: > On 5/18/15 6:04 AM, Jukka Ukkonen wrote: >> >> Find attached a trailing snippet of build time messages >> while running buildkernel on a 32 bit ppc (PowerMac G4 >> Quicksilver). >> During the last 2 months or so there have been some changes >> to sys/dev/drm2/radeon/radeon_fence.c in 10.1-stable which >> now break buildkernel. Previously I had rebuilt the whole >> operating system on this ppc platform on Apr 23 and then >> the build worked just fine. >> >> Now the whole oddity starts with an announcement... >> "cc1: warnings being treated as errors" >> and then begin warning messages about implicit declarations >> of this and that atomic 64 bit functions and more warnings >> about nested extern declarations of those same functions. >> I guess that some of the code seen by the compiler was >> never intended to be used on a 32 bit ppc system, but those >> changes were never actually tested on a 32 bit ppc either. >> >> Has anyone else noticed this? >> > > FWIW, build failed locally on a new 10.1 32bit install for: > > x11-wm/xfce4 > sysutils/screen > > Am guessing compiler has issues with 32bit ppc when fed some 64bit code; > I neglected to capture errors during build. > > I bet making 64bit instruction sets back-compatible for a compiler > building 32-bit ppc is a real hassle. > > I'm willing to build again and capture errors if someone else wants to > diagnose/fix. > > ATM am powerpc-happy using getty/xterm; So, the problem is not only in FreeBSD itself. At the moment I am uncertain whether I should take that as good news or as very bad news. For some reason I am far more annoyed, though, by the fact that I can no longer update my kernel and user space using the latest "stable" source. A few dysfunctional ports kits would be far easier to put up with. I can't help remembering my daughter's often heard comment a few years ago when something went totally pear shape: "Why me? Why me? Why is it always me?" --jau