Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 14:01:19 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: powerpc@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 245511] lang/gcc9: build with base GCC on powerpc64 elfv1 Message-ID: <bug-245511-25139-SBOPROSBSi@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-245511-25139@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-245511-25139@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=3D245511 Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@FreeBSD.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|FIXED |--- Flags|maintainer-feedback?(gerald |maintainer-feedback- |@FreeBSD.org) | Status|Closed |Open --- Comment #3 from Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@FreeBSD.org> --- I was just looking into this today morning, but missed hitting "Save change= s" on my NACK. I approve backporting the change that was discussed and committed upstream.= =20=20 Your other changes appear somewhat random and lead to a crippled compiler/ runtime. Since this only affects powerpc* with the legacy ABI and you could remove the dependency on GCC 8 there, let's primarily focus on how you have been going about it. Given that lang/gcc9 is the default version of GCC in the ports tree I would definitely have avoided the PORTREVISION bump for the vast majority of users - and made this conditional in this special case. Changes to the lang/gcc ports should first go in via their lang/gcc-devel counter-parts. Alternatively, and I will do this in the next days (so do *not* forward port your patch) we can disable powerpc* for lang/gcc9-devel and focus on the lang/gcc9 port as clearly has been your approach over time. I recommend you run `portlint -C` going forward - it would have caught a formatting issue. I'll address that next time I touch this Makefile. And we don't do commit messages with lines of 299 chars. Is files/patch-Makefile.in truely necessary? If it is, how could overriding BOOT_CFLAGS ever have worked for anyone? According to gcc/gcc/doc/install.texi passing BOOT_CFLAGS via MAKE_ARGS should work. Can you please try that instead? (https://ftp.gnu.org/old-gnu/Manuals/make-3.79.1/html_chapter/make_9.html#S= EC90 explains why files/patch-Makefile.in should not be necessary.) --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-245511-25139-SBOPROSBSi>