On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 4:18 PM, Pascal Stumpf <pas...@stumpf.co> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 16:13:14 +0200, David Coppa wrote:
>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2016, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>>
>> > On 2016-08-22, Pascal Stumpf <pas...@stumpf.co> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Last bugfix update for GCC 4.9. Works fine here so far, but should
>> > > probably go into at least one bulk.
>> >
>> > Also needs this:
>> >
>> > Index: devel/llvm/Makefile
>> > ===================================================================
>> > RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/llvm/Makefile,v
>> > retrieving revision 1.116
>> > diff -u -r1.116 Makefile
>> > --- devel/llvm/Makefile 31 Jul 2016 17:49:38 -0000 1.116
>> > +++ devel/llvm/Makefile 1 Sep 2016 09:35:21 -0000
>> > @@ -11,6 +11,7 @@
>> > LLVM_V = 3.8.1
>> > DISTNAME = llvm-${LLVM_V}.src
>> > PKGNAME = llvm-${LLVM_V}
>> > +REVISION = 0
>> > CATEGORIES = devel
>> > DISTFILES = llvm-${LLVM_V}.src${EXTRACT_SUFX} \
>> > cfe-${LLVM_V}.src${EXTRACT_SUFX}
>> > @@ -63,7 +64,7 @@
>> > TEST_TARGET = check
>> >
>> > # XXX sync
>> > -GCC_VER = 4.9.3
>> > +GCC_VER = 4.9.4
>> > .if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "amd64"
>> > GCC_CONFIG = x86_64-unknown-openbsd${OSREV}
>> > .else
>>
>>
>> Here's a rebased version of your update to gcc-4.9.4 plus my gfortran
>> patch.
>
> Not sure if we want to do the fortran thing. I don't care either way.
> Any opinions?
lang/gfortran is gone, so I don't see any problems... Ah, and conflict
markers are already in place.
Ciao!
David
