On 2017/12/06 11:49, Kirill Bychkov wrote: > On Wed, December 6, 2017 11:34, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 06 2017, "Kirill Bychkov" <ki...@linklevel.net> wrote: > >> On Wed, December 6, 2017 03:23, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote: > >>> On Sun, Dec 03 2017, "Kirill Bychkov" <ki...@linklevel.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi! > >>>> This patch enables build of libraw on other gcc4 arches, not only arm. > >>>> Tested on macppc. > >>>> OK? > >>> > >>> This looks heavy-handed to me, why extend this to all non-clang archs, > >>> afaik base-gcc has support for 4-bytes atomics on powerpc. How does the > >>> build fail exactly? > >> > >> Without patch I see > >> ===> libraw-0.18.5 is only for aarch64 amd64 i386 arm, not powerpc > >> (macppc) . > >> MODGCC4_ARCHS = arm somehow overrides ONLY_FOR_ARCHES: > >> > >> make show=ONLY_FOR_ARCHS > >> aarch64 amd64 i386 arm > >> > >> With patch: > >> make show=ONLY_FOR_ARCHS > >> aarch64 amd64 i386 amd64 arm hppa i386 mips64 mips64el powerpc sparc64 > >> > >> Switching MODULES=gcc4 to COMPILER=gcc made libraw unavailable on most > >> arches. > >> See > >> http://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/ports/graphics/libraw/Makefile.diff?r1=1.24&r2=1.25 > > > > ok, thanks for confirming. > > > >> Better patch: > >> > >> Index: Makefile > >> =================================================================== > >> RCS file: /cvs/ports/graphics/libraw/Makefile,v > >> retrieving revision 1.29 > >> diff -u -p -u -r1.29 Makefile > >> --- Makefile 16 Nov 2017 23:20:39 -0000 1.29 > >> +++ Makefile 6 Dec 2017 08:13:27 -0000 > >> @@ -22,9 +22,10 @@ WANTLIB += c jasper jpeg lcms2 m pthread > >> > >> MASTER_SITES = https://www.libraw.org/data/ > >> > >> -COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc > >> # for atomic builtins (__sync_fetch_and_add_4) > >> -MODGCC4_ARCHS = arm > >> +.if ${MACHINE_ARCH} == "arm" > >> +COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc > >> +.endif > > > > I guess it's fine, but isn't the shortest fix to add "base-gcc" at the > > end of COMPILER? > > macppc is quite happy with base-gcc, so it should be before ports-gcc. And > for arm ports-gcc is the only solution I suppose (have no hw to test). > So I see no other way to deal with arm other than this. > > >
I think COMPILER should be removed here, seems it should probably use this instead (untested): # XXX remove when armv7 switches to clang in base? MODULES= gcc4 MODGCC4_ARCHS= arm MODGCC4_LANGS= c++
