On 11/1/20 8:49 AM, Stuart Henderson wrote:
> On 2020/10/31 23:33, Aisha Tammy wrote:
>>> But that's not an option for something that is to be commited to the tree.
>>>
>>
>> Well damn...
>> Is there any other method to fix the compiler to cc instead of
>> this?
>> I tried adding the lang/clang module before the fortran module
>> MODULES = lang/clang fortran
>> but that fixes the compiler to /usr/local/bin/clang instead of the
>> /usr/bin/clang.
>> I am not sure what else to try right now :(
>
> The correct fix IMHO is the diff that Brad sent for ports/lang/gcc as
> this not only fixes this, but fixes some other problems we run into
> from time to time.
>
> If there is some other idea of using a different C compiler for ports
> which mix fortran+C then that should be handled in fortran ports modules
> or other infrastructure rather than individual ports.
>
That sounds good to me!
I assume there is going to be testing needed for getting
gas+egcc in the tree first.
In that case, I will pause my work on OpenBLAS until it
is incorporated. There is just way too much assembly in
OpenBLAS to do any considerable testing and switching it
to a different compiler later on.
Current port (with half-assed patching copied from gentoo)
link for anyone who wants to keep trying -
https://github.com/epsilon-0/openbsd-ports/tree/openblas/math/openblas
Best,
Aisha
No comments:
Post a Comment