On Fri, Jan 04, 2019 at 07:15:00PM +0100, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2019 17:11:01 +0000, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> > On 2019/01/04 17:57, Pascal Stumpf wrote:
> > > This switches aarch64 to use GCC 8.2.0 as default. Doesn't do any harm
> > > because this is the first GCC port that works there.
> > >
> > > We still need to decide whether to hook up gcc8 on all archs or aarch64
> > > only ...
> >
> > It needs hooking up in lang/gcc/Makefile for all arches. If you want to
> > restrict it to only certain arches then that needs doing via ONLY_FOR_ARCHS
> > / NOT_FOR_ARCHS in gcc/8/Makefile.
> >
> > > Index: gcc4.port.mk
> > > ===================================================================
> > > RCS file: /cvs/ports/infrastructure/mk/gcc4.port.mk,v
> > > retrieving revision 1.12
> > > diff -u -p -r1.12 gcc4.port.mk
> > > --- gcc4.port.mk 8 Mar 2016 16:46:05 -0000 1.12
> > > +++ gcc4.port.mk 4 Jan 2019 16:02:48 -0000
> > > @@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
> > > +.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "aarch64"
> > > +MODGCC4_VERSION?=8
> > > +.else
> > > MODGCC4_VERSION?=4.9
> > > +.endif
> > > .include "${PORTSDIR}/lang/gcc/${MODGCC4_VERSION}/gcc4.port.mk"
> > >
> >
> > It needs some work in arch-defines.mk as well, maybe also
> > compiler.port.mk and fortran.port.mk. I had a quick look but can't pay
> > it enough attention at the moment to find my way through the maze of
> > gcc4, gcc49 etc.
> >
>
> Indeed. We should probably rename GCC49_ARCHS to something more
> sensible and adjust the tree accordingly. Untested diff:
I'm not sure you want to remove any version reference there.
In fact, using GCC49_ARCHS instead of PORTS_GCC name was deliberate.
What happens when we get split gcc versions because of unsupported/badly
supported arches in the ports tree ?
What is the exact plan wrt which arch is going to move to what/when ?
are we suddenly going to retire gcc 4.9 everywhere and switch to gcc 8 ?
