Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 19:23:44 -0500 From: Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> To: Justin Hibbits <jrh29@alumni.cwru.edu> Cc: FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, gerald@FreeBSD.org, mi@aldan.algebra.com Subject: Re: r288669 breaks ports building with USE_GCC=yes Message-ID: <561C4F10.7060206@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAHSQbTC=SW8MOD63C=Gv8wqAWqyRrbpBeifo9HUfW98Sx8UJnA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAHSQbTC1ReVYiwcd6HxbteOyDeOxt1_ydz3zcFR3_Loc_X748A@mail.gmail.com> <561C1523.7080200@FreeBSD.org> <561C17F2.2030206@FreeBSD.org> <CAHSQbTC=SW8MOD63C=Gv8wqAWqyRrbpBeifo9HUfW98Sx8UJnA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/12/2015 3:33 PM, Justin Hibbits wrote: > Hi Pedro, > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 3:28 PM, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@freebsd.org> wrote: >> Hi again; >> >> On 12/10/2015 03:16 p.m., Pedro Giffuni wrote: >>> Hello; >>> >>> On 12/10/2015 02:56 p.m., Justin Hibbits wrote: >>>> The default ports gcc for USE_GCC is still 4.8, which does not support >>>> -fstack-protector-strong. This breaks several ports including (from >>>> my poudriere run): libfpx and qt4-sqlite3-plugin. >>>> >>>> - Justin >>> >>> r288669 only applies to base. It was tested with an exp-run and there were >>> no >>> failures so this is something wrong in your setup. >>> >> Ugh ... now that I remember, we actually used -stack-protector-all for the >> exp-run >> (which is supported in pretty much every gcc). >> >> Still, the change should only apply to the base system and not ports, and >> -stack-protector-strong appears to have been backported to gcc48 >> last year (see PR 186852). >> >> cheers, >> >> Pedro. >> > All I can say is building with USE_GCC=yes, I see the following error: > > g++48: error: unrecognized command line option '-fstack-protector-strong' > > This is using the latest gcc48 in ports (full tree updated yesterday). OK, I tested graphics/libfpx on i386-current: -stack-protector-strong indeed gets pulled in due to some non-orthodox workarounds in files/Makefile.bsd. g++48 accepts it just fine and the port compiles. Is this a platform that has GCC issues, perhaps? It looks like one of those "unfortunately series of events" that may have to be fixed in the port and/or gcc48. Pedro.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?561C4F10.7060206>