cvs commit: ports/lang/gcc45 Makefile distinfo
gerald at pfeifer.com
Sun Sep 26 14:58:58 UTC 2010
On Sun, 22 Aug 2010, Alexey Dokuchaev wrote:
>> Replace NOT_FOR_ARCHS by ONLY_FOR_ARCHS. 
>> Suggested by: linimon
> I don't really see the point. Ideally, any port (including gcc) should
> work across all architectures. If the port inherently cannot work on
> some arch (meaning it is not simply BROKEN there, but cannot be possibly
> fixed without e.g. total rewrite, or if it is binary-only, etc.), it can
> be marked IGNORE (old way) or (ONLY|NOT)_FOR_ARCHS (new way).
what you describe matches my understanding for general ports. When it
comes to a compiler which needs explicit support for different processor
architectures, operating systems, and the combinations thereof (which is
not automagic even if given support for each of the two in general), I do
feel things are indeed a bit different.
For example, GCC has been broken on FreeBSD/ia64 for three release series
and apparently only a single user cared about it without really managing
to get things addressed, though.
And when some general infrastructure around <stdint.h> was created in
GCC that needs specific configuration for every platform nobody stepped
upfor months. I did address both (the former still leaving some work
in progress) and one or two others now, even though I am not a compiler
hacker, but it shows that things are not straightforward for software
like a compiler.
> Now, since GCC is open source software, I believe it could/should be
> fixed to work on every Tier 1/2 arch; which means that ONLY_FOR_ARCHS
> will grow. In this light, the change is controversial at best.
Any help to fix this is very welcome! Some of our fellow committers
certainly can attest that I've managed to help getting things addressed
upstream and patches included there and I will continue to do my best to
help with that. In fact, I am in the process of testing and pinging one
where Kan has helped a user to address an issue he found.
> I'd like to hear Mark's rationale for .
I'm not Mark, and do not feel too strongly about the use of ONLY_FOR_ARCHS
here, but usually if portmgr makes a request I try to honor it. :-)
More information about the cvs-all