devel/riscv-elf/gcc: drop libcc1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
2 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

devel/riscv-elf/gcc: drop libcc1

Christian Weisgerber
There is a three-way conflict between
  lang/gcc/6
  devel/avr/gcc
  devel/riscv-elf/gcc
because all of them want to install ${PREFIX}/lib/libcc1.*.

From what I can google, libcc1 is intended as a plugin for gdb (!)
to allow compiling snippets of code from within gdb.  We don't have
gdb for riscv-elf, so the library is useless.  (Would it make any
sense at all for a cross-compiler?)

I suggest we simply remove the libcc1 component from the riscv-elf/gcc
port.  Patch below.  While there, I also deleted the MAKE_* assignments
from Makefile.  I don't know why they are there, they aren't used
for anything.

OK?

Index: Makefile
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/riscv-elf/gcc/Makefile,v
retrieving revision 1.2
diff -u -p -r1.2 Makefile
--- Makefile 24 Oct 2018 14:28:01 -0000 1.2
+++ Makefile 8 Nov 2018 16:11:55 -0000
@@ -5,24 +5,14 @@ COMMENT= gcc for riscv-elf cross-develop
 VERSION= 8.1.0
 DISTNAME= gcc-${VERSION}
 PKGNAME= riscv-elf-gcc-${VERSION}
-REVISION= 0
-
-SHARED_LIBS= cc1 0.0 \
- cc1plugin 0.0 \
- cp1plugin 0.0
+REVISION= 1
 
 SUBST_VARS+= VERSION
 
 WANTLIB= c m ${COMPILER_LIBCXX} gmp mpfr mpc pthread
 DIST_SUBDIR= gcc
 
-COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc base-gcc
-
-MAKE_GXX= No
-MAKE_FORTRAN= No
-MAKE_OBJC= No
-MAKE_JAVA= No
-MAKE_ADA= No
+COMPILER = base-clang ports-gcc base-gcc
 
 MASTER_SITES= ${MASTER_SITE_GCC:=releases/gcc-$(VERSION)/}
 
@@ -40,6 +30,7 @@ CONFIGURE_ARGS+=--enable-languages=${LAN
  --enable-interwork \
  --with-gmp=${LOCALBASE} \
  --with-newlib \
+ --disable-libcc1 \
  --disable-lto \
  --enable-cpp
 CONFIGURE_ENV= CPPFLAGS="-I${LOCALBASE}/include" \
Index: pkg/PLIST
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/ports/devel/riscv-elf/gcc/pkg/PLIST,v
retrieving revision 1.1.1.1
diff -u -p -r1.1.1.1 PLIST
--- pkg/PLIST 8 Jun 2018 14:24:32 -0000 1.1.1.1
+++ pkg/PLIST 8 Nov 2018 16:11:56 -0000
@@ -458,10 +458,6 @@ lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/p
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/include/wide-int.h
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/include/xcoff.h
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/include/xcoffout.h
-lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/libcc1plugin.la
-@lib lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/libcc1plugin.so.${LIBcc1plugin_VERSION}
-lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/libcp1plugin.la
-@lib lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/plugin/libcp1plugin.so.${LIBcp1plugin_VERSION}
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv32i/
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv32i/ilp32/
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv32i/ilp32/crtbegin.o
@@ -518,8 +514,6 @@ lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/r
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv64imafdc/lp64d/crtn.o
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv64imafdc/lp64d/libgcc.a
 lib/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/rv64imafdc/lp64d/libgcov.a
-lib/libcc1.la
-@lib lib/libcc1.so.${LIBcc1_VERSION}
 libexec/gcc/
 libexec/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/
 libexec/gcc/riscv64-unknown-elf/${VERSION}/
--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber                          [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: devel/riscv-elf/gcc: drop libcc1

Kevin Lo-3
On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 05:24:36PM +0100, Christian Weisgerber wrote:

>
> There is a three-way conflict between
>   lang/gcc/6
>   devel/avr/gcc
>   devel/riscv-elf/gcc
> because all of them want to install ${PREFIX}/lib/libcc1.*.
>
> >From what I can google, libcc1 is intended as a plugin for gdb (!)
> to allow compiling snippets of code from within gdb.  We don't have
> gdb for riscv-elf, so the library is useless.  (Would it make any
> sense at all for a cross-compiler?)
>
> I suggest we simply remove the libcc1 component from the riscv-elf/gcc
> port.  Patch below.  While there, I also deleted the MAKE_* assignments
> from Makefile.  I don't know why they are there, they aren't used
> for anything.
>
> OK?

ok kevlo@, thanks.