graphics/dri fails to build.

[Robert Noland]

On Sun, 2010-05-02 at 13:20 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On May 2, 2010, at 12:58 PM, Robert Noland wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2010-05-02 at 11:46 -0700, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> >> On May 2, 2010, at 5:30 AM, Robert Noland <rnoland at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Sun, 2010-05-02 at 11:26 +0200, Demelier David wrote:
> >>>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=143723
> >>>> 
> >>>> It seems adding CFLAGS+=-march-=native solved the problem but I  
> >>>> don't want to
> >>>> keep this flag everytime in my make.conf
> >>>> 
> >>>> How this flag could solve the problem ? I can't understand.
> >>> 
> >>> This actually stems from libdrm.  Intel requires certain atomics that
> >>> are not available on pure i386.  They are present in code built for  
> >>> i486
> >>> +.  The default cpu was changed to i486 some time .
> >> 
> >> Should the port be marked broken with -march=i386 then?
> > 
> > Well, I'm not sure quite how we would do that... but if your
> > kernel/world is not really old, it should just work unless you force gcc
> > to produce code that will run on i386.
> 
> 
> 	Something like this?
> 
> .if ${CPUTYPE} == i386

This part might work.

>  || ${ARCH} == i386 && ${CPUTYPE} == native

${CPUTYPE} == native will work fine and long as you aren't on a real
i386.  And I feel really sorry for anyone building X on a real i386.

robert.

> BROKEN  := this port requires i486+ CPU support
> .endif
> 
> 	Can't protect against someone using the non-supported means of compiling things and putting -m{arch,cpu,tune}=native in CFLAGS, et all.
> Thanks,
> -Garrett_______________________________________________
> freebsd-ports at freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
-- 
Robert Noland <rnoland at FreeBSD.org>
FreeBSD