Re: Why is one compiler on 10.6 able to generate PPC binaries and not the other?

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:20 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> on 10.6/x86_64 I tried to install clang 3.7 (thinking that version 3.7 > >> might have an even better support for PPC than 3.6). I just noticed this... my own assumption would be that, as availability of PPC test

Re: Why is one compiler on 10.6 able to generate PPC binaries and not the other?

On 10 March 2016 at 21:26, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> While following >>https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems#Leopardppc >> on 10.6/x86_64 I tried to install clang 3.7 (thinking that version 3.7 >> might have an even

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:47 PM, René J.V. wrote: > On Thursday March 10 2016 14:24:00 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > >> > CMake does something similar for all 4 built-in presets, so the only way I >> > know to control the exact compiler flags is to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a >> >

Re: Checking for problems before committing

On 2016-3-11 08:41 , David Evans wrote: On 3/10/16 12:29 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On 10 March 2016 at 05:48, Ryan Schmidt wrote: Obviously nobody is going to commit something they believe is broken, but it does sometimes end up being the

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thursday March 10 2016 14:24:00 Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > CMake does something similar for all 4 built-in presets, so the only way I > > know to control the exact compiler flags is to set CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE to a > > custom value. Debian/Ubuntu do that in their packaging scripts > >

Re: Checking for problems before committing

On 3/10/16 12:29 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > >> On 10 March 2016 at 05:48, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> Obviously nobody is going to commit something they believe is broken, but >>> it does sometimes end up being the case for some subset of

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> but I'm not sure how to programmatically understand the coding style of a >>> given portfile. >> >> It's possible (we load and execute portfiles today). >> >> It would probably be easier if portfiles more

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > > On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> The general problem is something we should address. >>> >>> (a 'compatibility version' we store for ports and make part of the >>>

Re: Checking for problems before committing

On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On 10 March 2016 at 05:48, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> Obviously nobody is going to commit something they believe is broken, but it >> does sometimes end up being the case for some subset of users. When it does, >> and we learn that it has

Re: Why is one compiler on 10.6 able to generate PPC binaries and not the other?

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 1:00 PM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > Hi, > > While following >https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems#Leopardppc > on 10.6/x86_64 I tried to install clang 3.7 (thinking that version 3.7 > might have an even better support for PPC than

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 3:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> The general problem is something we should address. >> >> (a 'compatibility version' we store for ports and make part of the >> dependency engine? a better 'revbump a bunch of ports tool'? something else?) >> >> We

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:15 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> That's probably safe, but I don't think there is a compelling reason to try >>> and only revbump the minimal set of ports (better to have some

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

> On Mar 10, 2016, at 9:26 AM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: > > On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > >> A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os >> is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as >> MacPorts

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 2:05 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> That's probably safe, but I don't think there is a compelling reason to try >> and only revbump the minimal set of ports (better to have some needless >> rebuilds/downloads of binary archives than to have mysteriously

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:04 PM, Daniel J. Luke wrote: > On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: >> On 2016-03-10 16:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote: The longer we wait, the harder it will be to catch these. Should we rev-bump all dependents of OpenSSL now? >>> >>> Those that haven't

Why is one compiler on 10.6 able to generate PPC binaries and not the other?

Hi, While following https://trac.macports.org/wiki/LibcxxOnOlderSystems#Leopardppc on 10.6/x86_64 I tried to install clang 3.7 (thinking that version 3.7 might have an even better support for PPC than 3.6). The problem is that clang-mp-3.7 doesn't want to produce ppc binaries, so I wasn't

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 12:46 PM, Rainer Müller wrote: > On 2016-03-10 16:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> The longer we wait, the harder it will be to catch these. >>> Should we rev-bump all dependents of OpenSSL now? >> >> Those that haven't already had their version or revision

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On 2016-03-10 16:34, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> The longer we wait, the harder it will be to catch these. >> Should we rev-bump all dependents of OpenSSL now? > > Those that haven't already had their version or revision increased since the > openssl update, yes, I would say. That is difficult to

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:26 AM, René J.V. wrote: > On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > >> A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os >> is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as >> MacPorts has

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On Mar 10, 2016, at 09:14, Rainer Müller wrote: > >> On 2016-03-03 02:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> I consider it the responsibility of the committer who updated the >> openssl port to the version that changed its library ABI to revbump >> the ports that link with it,

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thursday March 10 2016 10:13:16 Jack Howarth wrote: > A simple test with 'sudo port -d -s build llvm-3.8' reveals that -Os > is in fact used during the compiles on Intel. This is unsurprising as > MacPorts has standardized on -Os. > > CFLAGS='-pipe -Os' > CXXFLAGS='-pipe -Os -std=c++11

Re: Apache2 rev bump for OpenSSL update

On 2016-03-03 02:40, Ryan Schmidt wrote: > I consider it the responsibility of the committer who updated the > openssl port to the version that changed its library ABI to revbump > the ports that link with it, regardless of maintainer status. It > should have been done at the same time that

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:33 AM, René J.V. wrote: > On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >>> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >>> optimizations from -O2 to

Re: Checking for problems before committing

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 1:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > > When I was testing wxWidgets, discovered a problem and submitted a > patch, I noticed what they are doing now (which is some light years > more advanced compared to what they did a few years back when most of > the

Re: Checking for problems before committing

> Am 10.03.2016 um 07:48 schrieb Mojca Miklavec : > > The point is that this is all done *in advance* and avoids a lot of > problems. I would love to see something similar being done for patches > submitted to our Trac. Of course they would have to be submitted in a >

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >> optimizations from -O2 to -O3 would seem sufficient to produce a 10% >> execution optimization, no? >

Re: port:libclang (and libLLVM)

On Wednesday March 09 2016 20:48:19 Jack Howarth wrote: >>> Frankly I'd be surprised if that leads to a 10% performance difference! >> >> Why? My understanding is that the optimizations for -Os are equivalent >> to -O2 with the emphasis on size reduction. The additional >> optimizations from -O2