Re: lldb on sparc64

FWIW I am OK with jca's diff and intend to commit it on Monday if
nothing else is worked out beforehand.


On 2018/12/01 10:11, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:45:36PM +0100, Jeremie Courreges-Anglas wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 06 2018, Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > > On 2018/11/06 11:11, John Gould wrote:
> > >> Hello, I am trying to build parts of xfce4 and some kde4 applications on
> > >> 6.4 current on sparc64.
> > >> Although these applications worked or were available from packages on 6.3 I
> > >> am having no
> > >> luck on 6.4. I have several sparc machines here all doing nothing! Can
> > >> someone please help me with this or am I wasting my time? I've included a
> > >> dmesg below and some of the output of a recent build.
> > >>
> > >> Kind regards John
> > >>
> > >> /usr/ports/pobj/llvm-6.0.1/llvm-6.0.1.src/tools/lldb/include/lldb/Host/Editline.h:49:19:
> > >> fatal error: codecvt: No such file or directory
> > >>
> > >> #include <codecvt>
> > >>
> > >> ^
> > >
> > > This is exactly the reason why these are not available in packages on
> > > 6.4. The patch below for devel/llvm should get things unblocked though I
> > > don't know if it will help get you as far as the ports you're really
> > > interested in.
> >
> > Thanks. Diff refreshed for -current, successfully tested on sparc64
> > (and amd64).
> >
> > IMO this has been broken since too long already. I'd like us to fix
> > what we can now instead of waiting for a switch to gcc 6 in the upcoming
> > weeks/months/releases. Stuart, if you want to commit this, ok jca@
>
> Brad, you're still listed as the maintainer of devel/llvm, and you proxy
> commits to it via sthen@ and ajacoutot@, so i understand that you still
> work on it. devel/llvm has been broken on sparc64 (and maybe macppc,
> we'll see) since you rushed the 'enable lldb' bits before 6.4, which
> resulted in the low amount of sparc64 release packages for 6.4, and that
> affects actual users of the platform.
>
> I've loudly complained about it, sthen@ proposed a variation of the diff
> below that i've successfully tested in one of the past bulks, and i
> think you know it.
>
> Now, i know that "switching to gcc6" also fixes it, but it requires more
> work before being a short-time goal, so to unblock the situation, will
> you step up and give your opinion on jca@'s diff so that we can move
> forward ?
>
> I'm starting a sparc64 bulk without any diff. As a result, it wont have
> llvm & any of the packages depending on it, which i think is better:
> If llvm is available, all c++ ports end up depending on gcc (for
> libstdc++) *and* llvm because many (340-so) ports have
> COMPILER=base-clang ports-clang ports-gcc which is deeply wrong, but
> this has to be fixed separately from the lldb issue. For which as
> MAINTAINER, you have to step up.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Landry
>