On 2017-Nov-4, at 6:02 PM, Mark Millard <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2017-Nov-4, at 5:19 PM, Eddy Petrișor <eddy.petrisor at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Pe 5 nov. 2017 12:57 AM, "Gerald Pfeifer" <gerald at pfeifer.com> a scris: >> On Sun, 29 Oct 2017, Eddy Petrișor wrote: >>> Yep --and it is even more complicated: gcc vs. clang are sometimes >>> different for the target listed. . . >>> >>> For example -m32 for amd64 changes the clang result: >>> >>> # clang -dumpmachine >>> x86_64-unknown-freebsd12.0 >>> >>> .. >>> >>> # gcc7 -dumpmachine >>> x86_64-portbld-freebsd12.0 >> >> That's not actually related to GCC, but the lang/gcc* ports using >> the FreeBSD Ports Collection's default that explicitly set >> >> Yes, I know. That's why I said the vendor part must be forced to "unknown". >> >> >> CONFIGURE_TARGET?= ${ARCH}-portbld-${OPSYS:tl}${OSREL} >> >> By default GCC would use the same as clang. >> >> Sure, but that doesn't mean the vendor part of the triple in the default >> compiler is guaranteed to be 'unknown'. > > The "unknown" vs. "portbld" has a specific meaning > for a FreeBSD context: > > unknown: it is a devel/* port > portbld: it is a lang/* port > > This keeps the likes of devel/powerpc64-gcc > and lang/gcc6 from having conflicting files > on a powerpc64 FreeBSD machine, even when > they are at the same (full) version. > > The variation that I intended to write about > was the x86_64 vs. i386 variation when -m32 > is in use. That is a separate issue from > unknown vs. portbld .
I forgot to mention that I also intended to write about the -gnueabihf suffix vs. not for armv7 between various normal FreeBSD compilers (system and ports compilers). === Mark Millard markmi at dsl-only.net _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
