From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Nov 26 09:05:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB6116A403 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:05:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from SRS0=a4zSrRL+=FG=asarian-host.net=admin@asarian-host.net) Received: from mail.asarian-host.net (mail.asarian-host.net [194.109.160.70]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 535A443D67 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:04:21 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from SRS0=a4zSrRL+=FG=asarian-host.net=admin@asarian-host.net) Received: from anonymizer.asarian-host.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.asarian-host.net (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id kAQ95Cuq091642 for ; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 10:05:12 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from admin@asarian-host.net) DomainKey-Signature: q=dns; a=rsa-sha1; h=from:received-spf:message-id:date:x-authenticated-sender:subject:x-trace:organization:to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:x-mimeole; c=nofws; s=anon; d=asarian-host.net; b=FOAA7t/Ze2/1ZDiieZxBYkFMM62wjx3voZ1OCVQMP1Z6mvJaDuL3QmYIzuMsMa2NooPHwVrIpTIpcV1AbCyo1pRQCUEQx9c59rJJqHCPqlLWIal4TaeYtmqYeW8zOqSHnIoyqSxxYwun3hC1yYBS/0Rn5ruwIGyn3g3kmUHPd9Q= From: Mark Received-SPF: pass (asarian-host.net: 127.0.0.1 is authenticated by a trusted mechanism) receiver=anonymizer.asarian-host.net; client-ip=127.0.0.1; envelope-from=; helo=clientrunner.asarian-host.net; Message-Id: <200611260905.kAQ95BcY091634@asarian-host.net> Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:05:12 GMT X-Authenticated-Sender: admin@asarian-host.net X-Trace: xcMu1a9jvQoUWycZzQC9nBtc4PmLlCI2/ZJNUeRSlkTi7EYRUQeZHnmH6HcnlIYx X-Complaints-To: abuse@asarian-host.net X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers, otherwise we are unable to process your complaint X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on asarian-host.net Organization: Asarian-host To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <200611241658.13447.heroh@gmx.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962 Subject: RE: GCC upgrade X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 09:05:16 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Helge Rohde > Sent: vrijdag 24 november 2006 17:59 > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: GCC upgrade > > > > On Friday 24 November 2006 16:40, Mark wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Kris Kennaway [mailto:kris@obsecurity.org] > > > Sent: vrijdag 24 november 2006 17:11 > > > To: Mark > > > Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > > > Subject: Re: GCC upgrade > > > > > > > I tested the new gcc, btw (compiled MySQL server with > > > > it, which takes quite a while). Seems to work fine. > > > > But I'm not enough of a C expert to know precisely how > > > > to do a safe upgrade of this kind. > > > > > > If you're not an expert then just leave it alone. Replacing > > > the system compiler might sound like a cool thing to do, but > > > what will actually happen is that you'll make your FreeBSD > > > system unbuildable. > > > > Guess I hadn't thought about it that way. Good thinking. > > It's just that 2.95.4 seems so ancient. :) > > > > Only reason I wanted to in the first place, is that I've had several > > ports that wanted a 3.x series gcc (and kept wanting to build one). > > > > Thanks, > > You could leave the default in place, define a different gcc > for the ports in /etc/make.conf and then just add to the list of > excludes every time you run into problems while building a port. > Thats what i do, and so far roughly 80% of the ports seem quite > content with gcc4.2. Thanks, Helge! Yours is a very elegant solution. :) I really like the idea of still being able to build my system (as Kris pointed out), and yet do the ports with the new gcc. I also like the idea of being able to exclude certain ports (like I would do for certain already compiled things, like php4-extensions, of which newly added extensions will presumable need the system compiler again). One question, though: ..if ${.CURDIR:M*/ports/*} && !${.CURDIR:M*/work/*} Why would you NOT want to use the new gcc when in a /work/ directory? (where ports builds). Thanks, - Mark