On 25 Dec, 2012, at 14:57, Kubilay Kocak wrote: > On 26/12/2012 12:43 AM, Matthew Rezny wrote: >> On 25 Dec, 2012, at 4:49, Kubilay Kocak wrote: >> >>> On 25/12/2012 1:55 PM, Matthew Rezny wrote: >>> >>>> The immediate question is, what was the original error that >>>> mandated the workaround and does that error still occur with >>>> current version of Clang? If the latter is no, can we get rid >>>> of the temporary workaround? >>> >>> This may help provide some answers: >>> >>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=ports/171542 >>> >> Thank you for the suggestion. However, the topic of that PR is >> disabling PGO to build with Clang. I had already turned off the PGO >> option before the first build attempt, and the problem I faced was >> the insistence upon calling the non-existent GCC regardless of >> chosen port options. > > I referenced the PR as an additional information source, as I wasn't > entirely sure what issue you were facing without logs to reference. I > should have been more explicit than 'may help' and will do my best > next time. > > Ta, > > Koobs > The log was not included because it was nothing but a single useful line of information, the attempt to invoke gcc, following two screens worth of boilerplate.
In case I was unclear before, the problem I found is that the workaround makes it always call the assumed-present base gcc. There are two failures, never triggering a build of gcc from ports even when setting the option that should require it (GCC4.4+), and still attempting to call base gcc rather than the ports version had any gcc port been installed. Both those errors stem from a workaround that does not even seem necessary. The port appears to build fine with Clang. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
