Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2019 17:39:54 +0100 From: Tobias Kortkamp <tobik@freebsd.org> To: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> Cc: ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r517725 - head/lang/gcc9 Message-ID: <20191231163954.GA53990@urd.tobik.me> In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.21.1912301352200.13725@anthias.pfeifer.com> References: <201911160812.xAG8CZEi075212@repo.freebsd.org> <20191214155544.GA32673@urd.tobik.me> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1912221155590.3227@anthias> <20191222055804.GA251@urd.tobik.me> <alpine.LSU.2.21.1912301352200.13725@anthias.pfeifer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 01:52:26PM +1000, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Sun, 22 Dec 2019, Tobias Kortkamp wrote: > >>> when can we enable PLUGINS by default? > > It unlocks the ability to package GCC plugins (like the one in > > security/afl++) without custom builds of GCC. I would like to > > enable afl++'s GCC option by default, but a prerequisite of that > > is that PLUGINS is turned on by default in lang/gcc9. > >=20 > > Are there any downsides in enabling PLUGINS by default? >=20 > One downside is that the GCC plugin APIs explicitly are not stable,=20 > so can (and will) change with new versions of GCC. >=20 > Hence other ports using them will either need to pin to a fixed=20 > version of GCC (USE_GCC=3D9) and maybe become maintenance challenges > that way or become a blocker when we are next looking into updating=20 > the default version of GCC in Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk. >=20 > It's this kind of dependency that has made the later rather painful=20 > for the past years and iterations, though I do happily acknowledge > that you have been very supportive and helpful there. Plus we have=20 > managed to fully catch up, for the first time in a long while. :-) I am not too worried about that for afl++ at least for the foreseeable future. Upstream is actively maintained and has been fairly responsive when the Clang plugin failed to build during the LLVM_DEFAULT-to-9 update. At the moment it also builds/works fine with gcc10-devel. >=20 > So I have gone ahead and enabled plugins for lang/gcc10-devel and > lang/gcc9-devel with recent snapshots and plan on letting lang/gcc9 > follow at one point in January. >=20 >=20 > Why a bit later? In my experience maintaining the lang/gcc* ports > "you never know". ;-) Sometimes it's non-x86 architectures (notably > powerpc has kept us somewhat busy this year), sometimes it's -CURRENT,=20 > sometimes simply broader usage, and letting things settle a few weeks=20 > via gcc9-devel has been proven useful. >=20 > Makes sense? Sure. Thanks. --5vNYLRcllDrimb99 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQGTBAEBCgB9FiEElXvTEJc6ePgdQuobpPCftzzFH2EFAl4LeddfFIAAAAAALgAo aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDk1 N0JEMzEwOTczQTc4RjgxRDQyRUExQkE0RjA5RkI3M0NDNTFGNjEACgkQpPCftzzF H2HwlwgAjzuvGrcUtSXItrkP+9J7srD5sJ3D28Swtz/DaTt35ppGPSl+xKCuKzVf bMPTHO+vNZclSm9161VW76Ue9YeEVdBLlwiobJRsYzMkdjoCoqNukWdmUgkBFaKX JGYN9yNZdQsPEHEDTqsKiOGXb9k48Z2ffp146S30Y5HL+0hphLbnoGZnrqEuMcJF baR9mP4wxHVjwkIFHzAAJaQdg2xgoAyD6t5TbxYLt7u9417oEnURBygsoPrM4Or8 U4iN3E0a/P24+HGGLY78pqCZ/NMMB0JChAGQfKw6hygo+zW6uQjYx5c/5cOfmehf Eu30T+OFeqQQEYebL+vlRQ3n6ZeAxA== =19Sx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --5vNYLRcllDrimb99--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20191231163954.GA53990>