On 2016-Oct-7, at 2:14 AM, O. Hartmann <ohart...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > > Am Fri, 7 Oct 2016 02:00:34 -0700 > Mark Millard <mar...@dsl-only.net> schrieb: > >> O. Hartmann ohartman at zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote on Fri Oct 7 08:26:27 UTC >> 2016 . . . >> >> . . . of having problems with not finding <stddef.h> during some port builds. >> >> >> Is there a difference in the -isystem command line options for c++ for the >> working vs. >> failing contexts? >> >> I will presume that there is based on the following. . . (At least it gives >> you >> something to look into.) >> >> >> >> The issue is not specific to just graphics/opencv-core and graphics/blender >> ports: >> others also have problems with the use of -isystem for C++ compiles. See: >> >> https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=213217 >> >> in particular Comment #2 from Dimitry Andric. >> >> The problem is in how -isystem is used vs. what is needed for libc++ 3.8.0 . >> >> From O. Hartmann's message text: >> >> . . . >>> -isystem /usr/local/include/eigen3 -isystem /usr/include/include -O2 -pipe >>> -O3 >> . . . >>> In file included from /usr/include/c++/v1/algorithm:624: In file included >>> from /usr/include/c++/v1/initializer_list:47: >>> /usr/include/c++/v1/cstddef:43:15: fatal >>> error: 'stddef.h' file not found #include_next <stddef.h> ^ --- >> . . . >>> In file included from /usr/include/c++/v1/algorithm:624: In file included >>> from /usr/include/c++/v1/initializer_list:47: >>> /usr/include/c++/v1/cstddef:43:15: fatal >>> error: 'stddef.h' file not found #include_next <stddef.h> >> >> >> Dimitry wrote for this issue of <stddef.h> not being found: >> >>> Summary: If for some reason you must completely rebuild the header search >>> path >>> from scratch, you need to add -isystem /usr/include/c++/v1 *before* >>> -isystem >>> /usr/include. But it is better not to do this at all. :) >> >> There is more background/supporting information in that comment. >> >> === >> Mark Millard >> markmi at dsl-only.net > > Hello Mark, > > thanks a lot for the hint. > > I can not fathom - at the moment - what is different on the two failing > systems compared > to the non-failing ones. There must be something changing the order of how > the include > path is searched now
Do the log files from the various working systems show any differences in the -isystem sequence compared to the failing ones (for the same source file being compiled)? It might be appropriate for your submittals (buszizlla and list) to also include extractions of a working context's -isystem sequence vs. a failing context's -isystem sequence for compiling the same source file. (Your list submittal already showed an example of the failing -isystem sequence, one that matches what Dimitry A. reports: So expected to fail.) The working -isystem sequence one is not currently shown, at least in the list submittal.) If both types of contexts have the same -isystem sequence then something more is likely going on. But then showing examples of the matching log file text for the -isystem sequences for the two types of contexts would then be appropriate to identify the problem as unique. > - presumably I understood Dimitry Andric comment right (who explains the > problem very good > for my taste). > > I will make a reference to Dimitri's comment on both PRs I filed. > > Oliver === Mark Millard mar...@dsl-only.net _______________________________________________ freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"