Bug 251403
| Summary: | lang/gcc10 seems to not allow building for RISC-V | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Ports & Packages | Reporter: | Dennis Clarke <dclarke> |
| Component: | Individual Port(s) | Assignee: | Mark Linimon <linimon> |
| Status: | Closed FIXED | ||
| Severity: | Affects Some People | CC: | gerald, linimon, riscv |
| Priority: | --- | ||
| Version: | Latest | ||
| Hardware: | riscv | ||
| OS: | Any | ||
|
Description
Dennis Clarke
2020-11-26 12:02:56 UTC
When riscv64 was added as a "possible architecture" to the ports tree, we did not do a pass through the entire tree looking for ONLY_FOR lines and attempt to add it. w/rt ports on riscv64, they are still so new that you are on your own: unless you get interest from one of the riscv64 src developers, you are going to have to do all the work yourself. We *ask* ports maintainers to take a look at tier-2 architecture maintenance, but in fairness we cannot expect them to. In practice tier-2 ports debugging is done only by people particularly interested in the architecture. For instance, I am one of the several people that does the work for powerpc64. But, I only rarely ask maintainers for help, and only when I cannot see an easy solution to the problem, and the other ports committers interested in powerpc64 can't either. So, in this situation, all we can say is "append the string 'riscv64'" to the ONLY_FOR string, try it, and see what happens. Yes, thank you and I do know that I am well out into the wilds with this and to be fair it is fun to exerpiment with a new platform. I am working along through various packages in ports and hitting more than a few snags. Such is life out on the edge and that is fine. I also have done some work with ppc64 and to be fair that seems to be working well. I am going to do a build of gcc 10.2.0 outside of ports and see how that goes and then I'll come back to ports and give that a try. This will take days of course. Also, not sure if we can say this is "FIXED" as opposed to "go get more information and try this and lets see how it goes." FWIW, I'll happily accept a change to add riscv64 as a architecture, but as Mark said, won't be able to test this myself. Also, please start with the lang/gcc* port that tracks the latest upstream head (lang/gcc11-devel right now). That has the highest chance for success, and if something works there and not in the current release, that indicates it's with GCC, not FreeBSD. Also, before changing a lang/gccX port, please make that change to lang/gccX-devel first. One, for the same reason as above, and two these ports serve as canaries of sort, so better catch any troubles there instead of the "regular" port. (In both cases this also help avoid regressions, where an older version is ahead of a newer one.) |
