Sparc64 doesn't care about you, and you shouldn't care about Sparc64

[Ed Maste]

On 8 November 2015 at 20:46, Justin Hibbits <jrh29 at alumni.cwru.edu> wrote:
>
> I 100% agree with you on this.  If we can update binutils to the
> latest and greatest, I believe powerpc64 would be able to work with
> clang.  I've backported several patches, with IBM's permission, to
> binutils for handling new relocations, etc.  However, not all patches
> are straight forward, and currently we're missing something, which is
> causing odd segfaults in ld(1), when linking as(1).  No other binary,
> only as(1).  I've tried looking through it, but the binutils code is a
> mess.  I'm sure the bug that's getting hit was fixed with newer
> binutils, but have had a very hard time trying to test with it.

We have support in the tree to use an external binutils automatically
- we use this on arm64, which is completely unsupported by the in-tree
binutils. External binutils is enabled by setting
CROSS_BINUTILS_PREFIX=/usr/local/${TARGET_ARCH}-freebsd/bin/

This happens automatically if the target specifies BINUTILS_BOOTSTRAP
in BROKEN_OPTIONS -- for example, arm64 sets
BROKEN_OPTIONS+=BINUTILS BINUTILS_BOOTSTRAP GCC GCC_BOOTSTRAP GDB

I'd suggest that the first step in any of these discussions is to use
this to test building with the binutils port. We know it won't work
for mips today because upstream bintuils lacks FreeBSD/mips support.
It may work for other targets though. Even if it doesn't the same work
needs to be done regardless of whether the target uses an up-to-date
binutils from ports or from the src tree.