Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:00:50 +0200 From: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> To: Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Boost 1.55.0 (Was: Re: PowerPC Packages) Message-ID: <20140626190050.GE24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> In-Reply-To: <CAHSQbTDcZxj7Rc9Pu13E57apKLwqGqQq_ExA0vmQrtQa1uxThg@mail.gmail.com> References: <539DC0C5.60603@freebsd.org> <20140623131222.GA26450@FreeBSD.org> <20140625073340.GA57075@FreeBSD.org> <20140625072305.45baf39b@zhabar.att.net> <20140626100258.GA47002@FreeBSD.org> <53AC3DB2.3070902@freebsd.org> <20140626154416.GD24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <53AC5AA1.1030508@freebsd.org> <CAHSQbTDcZxj7Rc9Pu13E57apKLwqGqQq_ExA0vmQrtQa1uxThg@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Dzs2zDY0zgkG72+7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:30:39AM -0700, Justin Hibbits wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Nathan Whitehorn
> <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > On 06/26/14 08:44, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 08:35:14AM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On 06/26/14 03:02, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 07:23:05AM -0700, Justin Hibbits wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As I mentioned earlier, you can set "FAVORITE_COMPILER=3Dgcc" in
> >>>>> make.conf, and it'll build with gcc47.
> >>>>
> >>>> FAVORITE_COMPILER looks more like a hack to me. Ideally boost's port
> >>>> Makefile should be fixed instead.
> >>>>
> >>>> I also would rather use system compiler (whether it's gcc4.2 or clan=
g)
> >>>> instead of gcc47.
> >>>>
> >>>> ./danfe
> >>>>
> >>> Yes, it should be made to respect whatever cc is.
> >>
> >> As long as cc is supported upstream, boost being a nightmare to mainta=
in I
> >> will
> >> reject all patches that are not accepted upstream first, otherwise bum=
ping
> >> to
> >> 1.56 will be painful.
> >>
> >> That said I fully support the effort.
> >>
> >> regards,
> >> Bapt
> >
> >
> > The following patch fixes the issue for me (as well as several other po=
rts).
> > I'll let you decide whether this is how you want to handle the problem.
> > -Nathan
> >
> > Index: Mk/Uses/compiler.mk
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> > --- Mk/Uses/compiler.mk (revision 358026)
> > +++ Mk/Uses/compiler.mk (working copy)
> > @@ -75,7 +75,9 @@
> > ALT_COMPILER_TYPE=3D none
> > _ALTCCVERSION=3D
> > .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D gcc && exists(/usr/bin/clang)
> > +.if ${ARCH} =3D=3D amd64 || ${ARCH} =3D=3D i386 # clang often non-defa=
ult for a
> > reason
> > _ALTCCVERSION!=3D /usr/bin/clang --version
> > +.endif
> > .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D clang && exists(/usr/bin/gcc)
> > _ALTCCVERSION!=3D /usr/bin/gcc --version
> > .endif
> > @@ -138,7 +140,7 @@
> >
> > .if ${_COMPILER_ARGS:Mc++11-lang}
> > .if !${COMPILER_FEATURES:Mc++11}
> > -.if defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} =3D=3D gcc
> > +.if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} =3D=3D gcc) ||=
(${ARCH}
> > !=3D amd64 || ${ARCH} !=3D i386) # clang not always supported on Tier-2
> > USE_GCC=3D yes
> > CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE=3D gcc
> > .elif (${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D clang && ${COMPILER_VERSION} < 33) ||
> > ${COMPILER_TYPE} =3D=3D gcc
> >
>=20
> bapt mentioned a while back about separating the concept of the 'base
> compiler' and 'ports compiler'. Perhaps we need to explore this
> again. It should be possible to mark ports as being dependencies for
> the ports compiler, and all other ports would get built by said
> compiler, while those are built by the base compiler. This way we can
> take advantage of any enhancements we might get with a newer compiler
> (like better altivec support and autovectorization from newer gcc,
> better optimizations, etc).
>=20
> - Justin
nathan, I all for what you did, except that we should also add arm to the c=
lang
list ;)
Can you look at compiler.mk and apply the same concept?
justin I m still looking in that direction, but that implies the full c++ s=
tack
(which is a nightmare on all pre freebsd10) because anything asking for C++=
11
support will require a newer libc++ than the one shipped in base in case we=
use
gcc to build base. and mising libstdc++ all together can give you terrific
headache sometime ;)
regards,
Bapt
--Dzs2zDY0zgkG72+7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
iEYEARECAAYFAlOsbeIACgkQ8kTtMUmk6EwPBwCbB2H/jp57Zz5HfD19eJArTndP
g78AoJWQ2zvOspDDLrchwoQGNHdySZPX
=D/v8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Dzs2zDY0zgkG72+7--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140626190050.GE24440>