Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:22:41 +0200 From: John Hay <jhay@meraka.org.za> To: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@freebsd.org> Cc: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD PowerPC ML <freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org>, Nathan Whitehorn <nwhitehorn@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Justin Hibbits <chmeeedalf@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Boost 1.55.0 (Was: Re: PowerPC Packages) Message-ID: <20140627062240.GA65987@zibbi.meraka.csir.co.za> In-Reply-To: <20140626213333.GG24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> References: <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> <20140626190050.GE24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <53AC6E8E.7050700@freebsd.org> <20140626213333.GG24440@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:33:33PM +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 12:03:42PM -0700, Nathan Whitehorn wrote:
> >
> > On 06/26/14 12:00, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> > > 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=gcc" 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 clang)
> > >>>>>> 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 maintain I
> > >>>> will
> > >>>> reject all patches that are not accepted upstream first, otherwise bumping
> > >>>> 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 ports).
> > >>> I'll let you decide whether this is how you want to handle the problem.
> > >>> -Nathan
> > >>>
> > >>> Index: Mk/Uses/compiler.mk
> > >>> ===================================================================
> > >>> --- Mk/Uses/compiler.mk (revision 358026)
> > >>> +++ Mk/Uses/compiler.mk (working copy)
> > >>> @@ -75,7 +75,9 @@
> > >>> ALT_COMPILER_TYPE= none
> > >>> _ALTCCVERSION=
> > >>> .if ${COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc && exists(/usr/bin/clang)
> > >>> +.if ${ARCH} == amd64 || ${ARCH} == i386 # clang often non-default for a
> > >>> reason
> > >>> _ALTCCVERSION!= /usr/bin/clang --version
> > >>> +.endif
> > >>> .elif ${COMPILER_TYPE} == clang && exists(/usr/bin/gcc)
> > >>> _ALTCCVERSION!= /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} == gcc
> > >>> +.if (defined(FAVORITE_COMPILER) && ${FAVORITE_COMPILER} == gcc) || (${ARCH}
> > >>> != amd64 || ${ARCH} != i386) # clang not always supported on Tier-2
> > >>> USE_GCC= yes
> > >>> CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE= gcc
> > >>> .elif (${COMPILER_TYPE} == clang && ${COMPILER_VERSION} < 33) ||
> > >>> ${COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc
> > >>>
> > >> 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).
> > >>
> > >> - Justin
> > > nathan, I all for what you did, except that we should also add arm to the clang
> > > list ;)
> >
> > I think that should work automatically. Isn't clang cc on ARM? This only
> > has an affect if cc is gcc and clang is also installed. The assumption
> > is that clang is non-default for a reason in such cases (except for
> > stable/10 x86, which is special-cased).
> > -Nathan
Are all ARMs equal?
root@cambria-build:~ # uname -p
armeb
root@cambria-build:~ # uname -m
arm
root@cambria-build:~ # uname -a
FreeBSD cambria-build 11.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 11.0-CURRENT #1 r267739M: Mon Jun 23 07:10:57 SAST 2014 jhay@dolphin.meraka.csir.co.za:/usr/obj/arm.armeb/snaps/arm/11-tst/src/sys/CAMBRIA arm
root@cambria-build:~ # cc --version
cc (GCC) 4.2.1 20070831 patched [FreeBSD]
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Not that I think I want to compile boost on it. :-)
John
--
John Hay -- jhay@meraka.csir.co.za / jhay@meraka.org.za
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140627062240.GA65987>