freebsd stable - Jun 2017 - lang/gcc* package builds vs. release/11.0.1/ and the future release/11.1.0 because of vm_ooffset_t and vm_pindex_t changes and how the lang/gcc* work

Am 28. Juni 2017 22:38:52 GMT+08:00 schrieb Mark Millard <markmi at
dsl-only.net>:
>A primary test is building lang/gcc5-devel under release/11.0.1
>and then using it under stable/11 or some draft of release/11.1.0 .
Thank you, Mark. Let me know how it went. In the meantime I'll prepare the
change for gcc5 itself.
>It looks like the the lang/gcc5-devel build still creates and
>uses the headers that go in include-fixed/ but that they are
>removed from $(STAGEDIR}${TARGLIB} 's tree before installation
>or packaging.
>
>So, if I understand right, lang/gcc5-devel itself still does use
>the adjusted headers to produce its own materials but when
>lang/gcc5-devel is used later it does not. Definitely
>something to be testing since it is a mix overall.
I am not worried about that since that should not cause any binary
incompatibilities (ABI). The problem we encountered was about source code and
API in a wide sense of that term.
>Is some form of exp-like run needed that tries to force use
>of a release/11.0.1 built lang/gcc5-devel (-r444563) to build
>other things under, say, stable/11  or some draft of
>release/11.1.0 ? Is this odd combination even possible
>currently?
I am not aware of it, and while originally I was thinking to request an -exp run
(after the GCC version update which is dragging due to broken ports), time is
not on our side and the change should be low risk.
> [altermative approach] But I guess that did not work out.
Not with my current level of connectivity and my notebook a dead brick on top of
that. And my preference is to still build, but stow away (unless explicitly
requested to keep).
>Eventually most of the lang/gcc* 's will need whatever
>technique is used.
Yes, agreed. Version 5 is most important since it's the default; then 6; 4.x
is for retro computing fans ;-), so 7 will then be next.

Gerald

On 2017-Jun-29, at 3:10 AM, Gerald Pfeifer <gerald at pfeifer.com> wrote:
> Am 28. Juni 2017 22:38:52 GMT+08:00 schrieb Mark Millard <markmi at
dsl-only.net>:
>> A primary test is building lang/gcc5-devel under release/11.0.1
>> and then using it under stable/11 or some draft of release/11.1.0 .
> 
> Thank you, Mark. Let me know how it went. In the meantime I'll prepare
the change for gcc5 itself.
I'm not currently set up to run more than head on
any of amd64, powerpc64, powerpc, aarch64, or armv6/7
(which are all I target). And I'm in the middle of
attempting a fairly large jump to head -r320458 on
those. (powerpc 32-bit and 64-bit just failed
for libc++ time-usage compiling now that 32-bit has
64-bit time_t, including in world32/lib32 contexts
for powerpc64.)

It will likely be a while before I manage to have a
11.x context (without losing my head contexts), much
less examples from all "my" 5 TARGET_ARCH's. (Given past
wchar_t type handling problems (e.g.) for gcc targeting
powerpc family members I think it should be checked.)
I'll have to find and set up disks: I do not even have
such handy/ready at the moment.

[I got into this area by being asked questions, not by
my direct use of release/11.0.1 , stable/11 , or a
draft of release/11.1.0 .]

I'll let you know when I have some test results but
others may get some before I do.
> . . .
>> Eventually most of the lang/gcc* 's will need whatever
>> technique is used.
> 
> Yes, agreed. Version 5 is most important since it's the default; then
6; 4.x is for retro computing fans ;-), so 7 will then be next.
[In my normal/head environment I'm switching to lang/gcc7-devel
for gcc (from lang/gcc6 ) but I'm odd that way.]

==Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net