From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Feb  1 22:44:41 2015
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: ports@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 8075495F
 for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Sun,  1 Feb 2015 22:44:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (cl-1657.chi-02.us.sixxs.net
 [IPv6:2001:4978:f:678::2])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04439EF7
 for <ports@FreeBSD.org>; Sun,  1 Feb 2015 22:44:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
 by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id t11MiTkw032345;
 Sun, 1 Feb 2015 14:44:36 -0800 (PST)
 (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <201502012244.t11MiTkw032345@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 14:44:29 -0800 (PST)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
Subject: Re: testing the value of ${CXX} in ports Makefile
To: FreeBSD@shaneware.biz
In-Reply-To: <54CC8935.5020906@ShaneWare.Biz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: ports@FreeBSD.org
X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD <freebsd-ports.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-ports/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports>,
 <mailto:freebsd-ports-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 22:44:41 -0000

On 31 Jan, Shane Ambler wrote:
> On 31/01/2015 10:55, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 31 Jan, Shane Ambler wrote:
>>> On 30/01/2015 14:13, Don Lewis wrote:
> 
>> post-patch:
>> 	@echo CXX=${CXX}
>> 	@echo GCC_DEFAULT=${GCC_DEFAULT}
>> .if ${CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc and ${COMPILER_VERSION} == 49
>> 	@echo g++49 was detected
>> .else
>> 	@echo g++49 was not detected
>> .endif
>>
>> # make patch
>> make: "/usr/ports/editors/junk/Makefile" line 17: Malformed conditional (${CHOSEN_COMPILER_TYPE} == gcc and ${COMPILER_VERSION} == 49)
>> make: Fatal errors encountered -- cannot continue
> 
> yeah my bad - don't know why I typed `and` instead of `&&`
> 
>>> You may also want to consider patching with -
>>>
>>> #if (__GNUC__ == 4) && (__GNUC_MINOR__ == 9)
>>> // 4.9 specific changes
>>> #endif
>>
>> That would work if I was patching C or C++ code, but I'm actually patching
>> a file that is used to set the the -O value for CFLAGS.  The build stuff
>> in the port is pretty strange and uses different optimization levels for
>> for different parts of the build and one of choices that it makes
>> triggers a code generation bug in gcc 4.9.
> 
> What is the build system used?
> 
> Can the build files do something like
> 
> COMPVERS=`${CXX} --version | grep -e gcc -e 4.9`
> if [ ! -z $COMPVERS ]
>    ${CXX} -O2
> else
>    ${CXX} -Os
> fi

As near as I can figure out, it's a mixture of gmake and dmake kicked
off by a perl wrapper and both flavors have to be patched.  It just
seems easier to use four lines of shell code to change two instances of
-Os than to try to figure out how to get two different flavors of make
to do what I want (and verify that it actually works).  I could maybe
use the time I save on creating a gcc bug report and getting the
compiler fixed.