On Aug 27, 2013, at 8:46 AM, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 08/25/13 18:41, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Aug 2013, Volodymyr Kostyrko wrote: >>> I object. Many ports that compiles perfectly on gcc 4.2.1 can't be >>> compiled with lang/gcc. I checked this once and the number of ports >>> that require strictly gcc 4.2.1 was bigger for me then number of >>> ports that can't be compiled with clang but fill fine on lang/gcc. >>> >>> I'll gonna recheck whether lang/gcc42 is sufficient for them. But I >>> have that bad feeling... >> If there are ports that use USE_GCC=any and do not build with >> lang/gcc, these should have USE_GCC=4.2 -- without a '+'! -- >> not USE_GCC=any. >> >> It'll be great if you can fix any such port. > > It would be particularly nice if we had a port with FreeBSD's many > patches to 4.2. lang/gcc42 (and 46 and lang/gcc) do not build on > powerpc64, for example, while our in-tree GCC does.
I think it would be more than "nice" to have. I'd argue that these issues need to be addressed before we can claim to have a full external-supported toolchain story that's integrated and well tested and covers the needs of all our users. Warner _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
