NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2

The following reply was made to PR misc/54581; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Brian Buhrow <>
To: Robert Elz <kre%munnari.OZ.AU@localhost>
Subject: Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 10:10:02 -0700

 	Hello.   On the success front, I've almost got NetBSD-9 building
 cleanly from start to finish under netBSD-5.2.  The problem I have now is
 not compiler errors, but memory issues.  I'm building on an i386 system
 with 4GB of RAM and that seems not to be enough for concurrent compiling.
 I'll report back when I have the build runing cleanly with a patch set.
 The patches are minimal, which is good.  
 I'd like to thank everyone for the help so far in this process.
 On Oct 1, 12:34pm, Robert Elz wrote:
 } Subject: Re: misc/54581: Issues building NetBSD-9 under NetBSD-5.2
 }     Date:        Mon, 30 Sep 2019 13:54:15 -0700
 }     From:        Brian Buhrow <>
 }     Message-ID:  <>
 }   | 	hello Robert.  In continuing to try and build netbsd-9 under
 }   | NetBSD-5.2, I've run into one of these compiler options that gcc 4.1
 }   | doesn't like and which you committed about a year ago to the tree.
 } For that one I am fairly sure that I was just copying the same thing
 } that was done for a similar problem in another file.
 } But for these -Wno-xxx options, in general, they are needed whenever
 } the compiler implements the -Wxxx option (which the build's -Wall would
 } turn on) - if the compiler is old enough to not have that option, then
 } turning it off (which it also doesn't recognise) isn't going to work.
 } This kind of thing can be handled in the Makefile with a test on the
 } gcc version being used, if we can find out which gcc version introduced
 } the relevant option - and only include the -Wno-xxx for versions of gcc
 } that are not older than the version where the option appeared.
 } But I am not sure it is really worth it - that is, even with these band
 } aids, which could be done with no worse effects than more clutter in the
 } Makefiles - I am not sure you're going to be able to get a NetBSD 5 gcc to
 } build -9 or HEAD.
 } What you should do is simply remove any options like this from your source
 } files, when the compiler objects (comment them out with an easy pattern
 } to grep for later, like "#XYZ#" or something) and see if simply doing that
 } (as many times as is needed) is enough to get the build to complete.
 } If it is, do a complete recursive grep through the source tree, looking
 } for that pattern, so we know everywhere that would need to be changed, and
 } then we can see if it is worth doing this in HEAD, and requesting a pullup
 } to -9.
 } kre
 >-- End of excerpt from Robert Elz

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index