Re: xmlcharent-0.3_2 and iso8879-1986_3 package reinstalls: "pkg: POST-INSTALL script failed"? vs. @xmlcatmgr and Keywords/xmlcatmgr.ucl

2018-10-16 Thread Matthias Andree
Am 11.10.18 um 17:39 schrieb Mark Millard via freebsd-toolchain: > In updating a powerpc64 context after a poudriere-devel bulk run, I > got the following from pkg upgrade . . . > > Installed packages to be REINSTALLED: xmlcharent-0.3_2 (ABI changed: > 'freebsd:12:powerpc:64' ->

[Bug 215039] head -r339076 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 clang 6.0.1 based buildworld on powerpc64 using WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND= fails to build: asserts and rejects .S file contents

2018-10-16 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215039 Mark Millard changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|head -r309179 |head -r339076

[Bug 215039] head -r309179 TARGET_ARCH=powerpc64 clang 3.9.0 based buildworld on powerpc64 using WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND= fails to build: asserts and rejects .S file contents

2018-10-16 Thread bugzilla-noreply
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=215039 --- Comment #3 from Mark Millard --- Note: I recently posted to a list that the problems still exist as of head -r339076 . This was in reply to a suggestion to try it. But the particular experiment was adding WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND= to a

How to get devel/powerpc-gcc based WITH_LIBCPLUSPLUS= buildworld to have some throwing of C++ exceptions work (patch)

2018-10-16 Thread Mark Millard via freebsd-toolchain
I now have a patch that gets some basic C++ exception throwing going for WITH_LIBCPLUSPLUS= use when building via devel/powerpc64-gcc . But the overall mechanism seems to mess up the handling of powerpc64's "red zone" style of stack processing in various cases. I've had recent list submittals

Re: GPL requirements vs. "some of which are compiled with GCC" terms in special exceptions?

2018-10-16 Thread Mark Millard via freebsd-toolchain
[WITH_LLVM_LIBUNWIND= is still broken for powerpc64 (and likely powerpc).] On 2018-Oct-13, at 7:54 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > On 2018-Oct-13, at 7:40 PM, Mark Millard wrote: > >> On 2018-Oct-13, at 10:15 AM, David Chisnall wrote: >> >>> This is a known problem with the GCC runtime libraries.