Sparc64 support

[Bill Sorenson]

I'm worried this little thread I started is becoming a place where things
are getting done. Golly.

-Bill Sorenson
On Aug 10, 2015 1:03 AM, "Adrian Chadd" <adrian.chadd at gmail.com> wrote:

> poke dim and the other compiler-y people. They have a plan, and it's
> about time we started the deorbit. :)
>
>
> -a
>
> On 9 August 2015 at 22:54, Jordan Hubbard <jordanhubbard at me.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Aug 9, 2015, at 10:11 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> It's supposed to be (for mips):
> >>
> >> pkg install mips-gcc mips-xtoolchain
> >> make ... CROSS_TOOLCHAIN=mips-gcc ...
> >>
> >> .. however there are loose ends to fix that prevent that from working
> >> out of the box.
> >
> > OK, so here’s what I would propose (and I would even, gulp, be willing
> to toss a little engineering resources at it if it makes it actually
> happen):
> >
> > 1. We add some sort of arch-bootstrap rule to /usr/src/Makefile which
> does the following:
> >
> >         1a. If TARGET_ARCH is one of the “clang supported”
> architectures, it sets some “use internal compiler” flags and declares an
> early victory.  Go to step 1d.
> >
> >         1b. If TARGET_ARCH is one of those “No one can explain to Adrian
> just how this even works” then it just falls out of -current until someone
> can do steps 1b and 1d.
> >
> >         1c. If TARGET_ARCH is one of the “external toolchain” supported
> architectures then it does the appropriate ``pkg info blah'' introspection
> to see if the appropriate toolchain is already installed, and if so, we go
> to step 1d.  Otherwise, it goes “Bleah!  You must: pkg install
> 6502-weird-ancient-gcc 6502-apple][-runtime” and aborts, so the user can
> then make the determination about whether to cruft up their build machine
> with those packages and retry the operation.
> >
> >         1d. All of the appropriate COMPILER_FOO variables are set to
> compile for TARGET_ARCH and away we go.
> >
> > 2. Having done #1, we de-orbit the base version of gcc and let clang
> take its rightful place as the only “internal compiler” supported in base.
> None of the weird architecture folks can complain that we just broke
> -current for them because the arch-bootstrap rule will do all the right
> things for their architecture (or if it doesn’t, they know what to hack
> until it does) and steer the user in the direction of the appropriate
> package(s).
> >
> > Am I missing anything?  Is it really that obvious?  It seems I must be
> missing something if this is truly just a 2 step process. :)
> >
> > - Jordan
> >
>