port's svn commit: r413746 - in head "many ports: mark broken on powerpc64": for what toolchains?

[Steve Wills]

Hi,

On 04/24/16 10:16 AM, Mark Millard wrote:
> 
> For all the port update activity (including ruby) I used gcc49, /etc/make.conf being:
> 
> # more /etc/make.conf DEFAULT_VERSIONS+=perl5=5.22 
> WRKDIRPREFIX=/usr/obj/portswork
> WITH_DEBUG=
> WITH_DEBUG_FILES= 
> MALLOC_PRODUCTION=
> #
> #
> # For trying gcc49...
> # 
> CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc49
> CXX=/usr/local/bin/g++49 
> CPP=/usr/local/bin/cpp49
> . . . (binutils macros omitted here) . . .
> 
> 
> (I do not know if lang/gcc [or lang/gcc48] would work or not. I
> prefer a tool chain with a more modern C++ available but gcc49 is not
> yet what lang/gcc builds.)
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen notation like:
> 
> USE_GCC=        4.9+
> 
> in port Makefiles. Also notation like:
> 
> .if ${ARCH} == powerpc64
> 
> and:
> 
> .if ${ARCH} == "powerpc" || ${ARCH} == "powerpc64"
> 
> 
> So may be the extra notation in the Makefile(s) in question could be something like:
> 
> # clang 3.8.0 and before is still broken in various ways for powerpc and powerpc64:
> .if ${ARCH} == "powerpc" || ${ARCH} == "powerpc64"
> USE_GCC=        4.9+
> .endif
> 

Yep, this sounds right to me. I will test this with at least lang/ruby22
and lang/gcc6-devel when my current build finishes, or sooner if I get
impatient. :)


> I list both powerpc variants because powerpc and powerpc64 both have
> clang problems making buildworld a no-go by default and if gcc 4.2.1
> rejects a port for one it would normally also reject for the other.
> There may be other ${ARCH} values that would also be appropriate
> because they are also stuck at gcc 4.2.1 .

Makes sense.

> I do not claim to know necessary vs. sufficient status: more might be
> needed for some configurations (rpath issues? mixture of libraries
> compiled by distinct gcc's?). But I expect that the above should be
> better than being marked broken.

We'll find this out when we test! :)

Thanks,
Steve