[My wording presumed some context not presented.] On 2018-Nov-14, at 18:21, Mark Millard <marklmi at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2018-Nov-14, at 17:45, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery at FreeBSD.org> wrote: > >> I think the real problem here is that Poudriere is setting MACHINE_ARCH >> in make.conf and sys.mk loads make.conf *after* checking MACHINE_CPUARCH >> (derived from MACHINE_ARCH) to determine CFLAGS; The .if is expanding >> MACHINE_CPUARCH before make.conf is included. >> >> We probably need a make-env.conf thing like src-env.conf to allow >> modifying sys.mk earlier. > > Cool. > > > We still get the result that arm[67], and possibly some mips, > have had a lot of -O2 use based on what has historically been > done by the qemu-user-static based official-build servers. The reference to qemu-user-static was meant to be for with /nxb-bin/. . . (or some form of native tools). It is the native tools that initially have MACHINE_ARCH being amd64 by default for the example contexts. Absent that, qemu-arm-static would likely report armv6 for all arm's until the explicit assignment. (The "armv6" is a single compile-time constant in the qemu-arm-static source at this time.) So this likely would behave as on a native build: -O . > And that leads to questioning the need for -O instead of -O2 > for armv[67] and possibly some mips contexts. > > Or, going the other way: Should -O be forced and have an > exp run for, say armv7 ? An example of what would be found is > what I ran into for x11/pixman when its build used -O (native) > instead of -O2 (cross-build via qemu-user-static) and a link > command failed for -O use. (It was the failure that started my > looking for what was different from my prior cross-build that > had worked.) === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com ( dsl-only.net went away in early 2018-Mar) _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
