Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 18:10:16 +0800 From: Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> To: Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-only.net> Cc: papowell@astart.com, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Toolchain <freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org>, Pedro Giffuni <pfg@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: lang/gcc* package builds vs. release/11.0.1/ and the future release/11.1.0 because of vm_ooffset_t and vm_pindex_t changes and how the lang/gcc* work Message-ID: <C25E8566-89FC-4CCE-A7AF-F8B18EB758D7@pfeifer.com> In-Reply-To: <F9DACFDB-AF70-461E-B6B2-D5E9385F6D9A@dsl-only.net> References: <6FD738D6-F163-4BC5-8E6E-A9B9F35595CD@dsl-only.net> <BD68F3F3-A81C-4830-9169-6188A05EF6B2@dsl-only.net> <82A991B0-FD8B-457F-8483-D61AE5E6D6F6@pfeifer.com> <F9DACFDB-AF70-461E-B6B2-D5E9385F6D9A@dsl-only.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Am 28=2E Juni 2017 22:38:52 GMT+08:00 schrieb Mark Millard <markmi@dsl-onl=
y=2Enet>:
>A primary test is building lang/gcc5-devel under release/11=2E0=2E1
>and then using it under stable/11 or some draft of release/11=2E1=2E0 =2E
Thank you, Mark=2E Let me know how it went=2E In the meantime I'll prepare=
the change for gcc5 itself=2E
>It looks like the the lang/gcc5-devel build still creates and
>uses the headers that go in include-fixed/ but that they are
>removed from $(STAGEDIR}${TARGLIB} 's tree before installation
>or packaging=2E
>
>So, if I understand right, lang/gcc5-devel itself still does use
>the adjusted headers to produce its own materials but when
>lang/gcc5-devel is used later it does not=2E Definitely
>something to be testing since it is a mix overall=2E
I am not worried about that since that should not cause any binary incompa=
tibilities (ABI)=2E The problem we encountered was about source code and AP=
I in a wide sense of that term=2E
>Is some form of exp-like run needed that tries to force use
>of a release/11=2E0=2E1 built lang/gcc5-devel (-r444563) to build
>other things under, say, stable/11 or some draft of
>release/11=2E1=2E0 ? Is this odd combination even possible
>currently?
I am not aware of it, and while originally I was thinking to request an -e=
xp run (after the GCC version update which is dragging due to broken ports)=
, time is not on our side and the change should be low risk=2E
> [altermative approach] But I guess that did not work out=2E
Not with my current level of connectivity and my notebook a dead brick on =
top of that=2E And my preference is to still build, but stow away (unless e=
xplicitly requested to keep)=2E
>Eventually most of the lang/gcc* 's will need whatever
>technique is used=2E
Yes, agreed=2E Version 5 is most important since it's the default; then 6;=
4=2Ex is for retro computing fans ;-), so 7 will then be next=2E
Gerald
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?C25E8566-89FC-4CCE-A7AF-F8B18EB758D7>