svn commit: r517725 - head/lang/gcc9

Tobias Kortkamp tobik at freebsd.org
Tue Dec 31 16:39:58 UTC 2019


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.
> > 
> > Are there any downsides in enabling PLUGINS by default?
> 
> One downside is that the GCC plugin APIs explicitly are not stable, 
> so can (and will) change with new versions of GCC.
> 
> Hence other ports using them will either need to pin to a fixed 
> version of GCC (USE_GCC=9) and maybe become maintenance challenges
> that way or become a blocker when we are next looking into updating 
> the default version of GCC in Mk/bsd.default-versions.mk.
> 
> It's this kind of dependency that has made the later rather painful 
> for the past years and iterations, though I do happily acknowledge
> that you have been very supportive and helpful there.  Plus we have 
> 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.

> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 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, 
> sometimes simply broader usage, and letting things settle a few weeks 
> via gcc9-devel has been proven useful.
> 
> Makes sense?

Sure. Thanks.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 618 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-ports-head/attachments/20191231/b6b4362d/attachment.sig>


More information about the svn-ports-head mailing list