Remove tests for obsolete compilers in the build system
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by vangyzen on May 10 2020, 10:09 PM.

Details

Reviewers

imp
emaste
jhb

Commits

rGa606cb388f97: Remove tests for obsolete compilers in the build system
rS360964: Remove tests for obsolete compilers in the build system

Summary

Assume gcc is at least 6.4, the oldest xtoolchain in the ports tree.
Assume clang is at least 6, which was in 11.2-RELEASE. Drop conditions
for older compilers.

Test Plan

tinderbox with in-tree toolchain
amd64 buildworld/buildkernel with amd64-gcc xtoolchain (6.4.0)
amd64 buildworld/buildkernel on 11.2-RELEASE

(There were unrelated failures in 1 and 2.)

Diff Detail

Repository

rS FreeBSD src repository - subversion

Lint

Lint Not Applicable

Unit

Tests Not Applicable

Event Timeline

vangyzen created this revision.May 10 2020, 10:09 PM

Herald added subscribers: bcran, bdragon, dab and 4 others. · View Herald TranscriptMay 10 2020, 10:09 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B31019: Diff 71625.May 10 2020, 10:09 PM

vangyzen requested review of this revision.May 10 2020, 10:09 PM

vangyzen added inline comments.May 10 2020, 10:14 PM

share/mk/bsd.sys.mk
74 ↗	(On Diff #71625)	I just realized I can completely remove these three conditions.

remove unnecessary if-clang conditions

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B31021: Diff 71627.May 10 2020, 10:18 PM

overall LGTM

share/mk/bsd.sys.mk
217 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	do we need this conditional at all?

vangyzen added inline comments.May 10 2020, 10:44 PM

share/mk/bsd.sys.mk
217 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	I'm glad you asked. I don't know. Are there other compilers capable of building FreeBSD? Intel released a FreeBSD version of their 2016 compiler. I intend to try building FreeBSD with it (in my copious spare time).

Follow on work may include assuming c++11 or c++14, but this is a great start and should be committed as is, module units from the review.

share/mk/bsd.sys.mk
142 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	We should note that we should clean up warnings produced with these flags. They were originally there as a quick hack to enable gcc5/6
217 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	We don't need it. Intel compiler support needs to be based on someone using it successfully. Changes to support it are likely more extensive than this one line...
stand/efi/boot1/Makefile
46 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	Do we still need this?
stand/efi/loader/Makefile
36 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	Ditto

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.May 10 2020, 10:59 PM

kib added inline comments.May 11 2020, 11:49 AM

lib/libthr/Makefile
32 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	Shouldn't this -Wno option be removed instead ? I do not even see this warning option (either with or without no-) in gcc 10.1 manual.

emaste added inline comments.May 11 2020, 2:35 PM

lib/libthr/Makefile
32 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	The test was not GCC-before-4.3 so I think the patch is what's intended? Perhaps we need to separately check this option though.

zeising added a subscriber: zeising.May 11 2020, 2:40 PM

vangyzen marked 6 inline comments as done.May 11 2020, 3:09 PM

vangyzen added inline comments.

lib/libthr/Makefile
32 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	It is still needed for in-tree clang, at least.
share/mk/bsd.sys.mk
217 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	I love the deadpan delivery of this understatement.
stand/efi/boot1/Makefile
46 ↗	(On Diff #71627)	Apparently not.