Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2018 10:12:23 -0700 From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Li-Wen Hsu <lwhsu@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Do we need FreeBSD's minor version in gcc and binutils paths? Message-ID: <caae0508-138a-ebf9-a02d-71c00758936a@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAKBkRUzUV5MEpMdE2rrmhwqwrubWcZCJku3HnH5n-maBjkQZBw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAKBkRUzUV5MEpMdE2rrmhwqwrubWcZCJku3HnH5n-maBjkQZBw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/5/18 8:43 AM, Li-Wen Hsu wrote: > For example, currently packages of 11.x are built on 11.1 so > aarch64-gcc installs /usr/local/bin/aarch64-unknown-freebsd11.1-gcc > and aarch64-binutils install /usr/local/aarch64-unknown-freebsd11.1/bin/ld > > This is a bit weird to see these on a 11.2 system, also causes some > problem while testing alone with local-built toolchains. > > Does it make sense to strip the minor version in the paths? > i.e. change to something like /usr/local/bin/aarch64-unknown-freebsd11-gcc > > I think this should be fine since we guarantee ABI stable in a stable branch. For the xtoolchain packages I want to strip the versions entirely since they are the OS version of the machine that built the package and not the target version of the OS being built (and they should really be the latter). -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?caae0508-138a-ebf9-a02d-71c00758936a>