Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2020 21:09:20 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: toolchain@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 207125] lang/gcc9: (clang used to build) CFLAGS for clang stops portmaster lang/gcc9 build (report updated from gcc6 original) Message-ID: <bug-207125-29464-aJV22C8vLa@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-207125-29464@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-207125-29464@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=3D207125 Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |Not Accepted Status|Open |Closed --- Comment #12 from Mark Millard <marklmi26-fbsd@yahoo.com> --- (In reply to Gerald Pfeifer from comment #11) > Isn't this too a large extent a case of "Doktor, it hurts when I do X" > - "Can you just not do X, then?" The problem is knowing up-front that X will lead to hurt or figuring out what X it was that caused the hurt or what to do that avoids X. It is not even obvious what command line options are common between xgcc and clang in various cases. But that does not imply that there is a reasonable solution. Ports supporting CFLAGS.gcc+=3D and CFLAGS.clang+=3D as a way to keep things separate would only help after figuring out that the split was needed and only would remove some of the problem for "what to do that avoids X" (because X would not have to be avoided). Status does not have a "no plan to fix" for Closed. I'm picking "Not Accepted" for now. Feel free to adjust if another selection is more appropriate. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-207125-29464-aJV22C8vLa>