Re: Combining ports built with PCC and GCC
On Thu, 10 May 2012 13:15:03 -0700 Matthew Dempsky wrote: > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Brett wrote: > > I am wondering if this will work ok the other way round? > > In theory, GCC and PCC should implement the same ABI and so it should > work either way. > > In practice, good luck. I tried this and the required luck Matthew Dempsky mentions was nowhere to be found. Basically I ran my usual script but with CC as PCC. Whatever did not build with PCC I then built with GCC, but I got a lot of failed builds (eg Sylpheed did not build with GCC once PPC ports had been built). So basically to mix programs built with both compilers the results are a lot better if everything that requires GCC is built first. A compiler more minimal than the "dancing hippo" [http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-11/msg00918.html] is good. I still see commits happening on PCC mailing list, hopefully one day it will build everything.
Re: Combining ports built with PCC and GCC
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 7:43 PM, Brett wrote: > I am wondering if this will work ok the other way round? In theory, GCC and PCC should implement the same ABI and so it should work either way. In practice, good luck.
Combining ports built with PCC and GCC
Hi ports, I've been using PCC to compile some ports, using export CC=/usr/local/bin/pcc. I read in Undeadly http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20070915195203&mode=flat&count=0 that PCC programs can run, even when linked against libraries built with GCC. And this seems to be the case (at least, everything that I tried and that can make it through the build works fine). I am wondering if this will work ok the other way round? ie: next time I rebuild all my ports to current, if I build every port I can with PCC, and whatever does not build with it I build afterwards with GCC, will it also work ok? Or are the likely to be subtle (or not so subtle) failures? I could just try it and see but thought I would ask first. Saves me blaming some innocent program if the failures are subtle. Thanks, Brett.