From owner-svn-ports-all@freebsd.org Sun Jun 23 17:17:55 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C7A915D5A32; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 17:17:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:6074::16:84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6307946BF; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 17:17:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jbeich@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1354) id 73DE619682; Sun, 23 Jun 2019 17:17:54 +0000 (UTC) From: Jan Beich To: Mark Linimon Cc: Mark Linimon , ports-committers@freebsd.org, svn-ports-all@freebsd.org, svn-ports-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r504811 - head/net/tcpkali References: <201906212006.x5LK6ITT066843@repo.freebsd.org> <20190623134615.GE10311@lonesome.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 19:17:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20190623134615.GE10311@lonesome.com> (Mark Linimon's message of "Sun, 23 Jun 2019 13:46:15 +0000") Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A6307946BF X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.90 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.997,0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.91)[-0.909,0]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11403, ipnet:2610:1c1:1::/48, country:US] X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 23 Jun 2019 17:17:55 -0000 Mark Linimon writes: > At this point I'm confused by your replies. What action are you > requesting me to make at this point? Try to replace BROKEN with USES=compiler:c11 and test on powerpc64. Newer GCC should support 64-bit atomics. The x86 assembly BROKEN message alludes to is only used when atomics aren't supported. I don't have powerpc64 around to confirm, and ref12-ppc64 is not usable for poudriere due to lack of root.