Consequences of using MacPorts GCC as a fallback compiler on PowerPC

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Mar 22, 2018, at 20:23, Kenneth F. Cunningham wrote:

> On 2018-03-22, at 5:11 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> 
>> There are already ports out there, and installed on user systems, and binaries being distributed that were built by our buildbot, that were built with a MacPorts gcc without -D_GLIBCXX_USE_CXX11_ABI=0 set. These would be ports that do not use the cxx11 1.1 portgroup and that don't use C++11. 
> 
> I can't help but think that any ports where the change in LIBCXX ABI was an issue have been identified as build failures on the buildbots < 10.9, and the cxx11 1.1 PG was added.
> 
> Any of the very few others I might have upgraded separately to build with gcc6 on PPC for C11 or other reasons, aren't using the changed c++11 features of libstdc++ anyway, or they would be in the cxx11 1.1 PG.
> 
> So - do they all really need to be rebuilt? I'm trying to think if there are any cases of incompatibility that might slip through this logic, and none are coming to mind just now….

I am not talking about ports that require C++11 which are already using the cxx11 1.1 portgroup which forces the use of the old ABI.

I am talking about ports that do not require C++11, but which are configured to build using a MacPorts gcc for whatever reason, and which therefore at present are using the new ABI.


To get a list of portfiles that explicitly set the compiler to a MacPorts gcc, run:

port file all|sort -u|xargs grep -l 'configure\.compiler.*macports-gcc'

Not all of these use C++. Many of them may be doing this because they contain Fortran or Java code.

But gigabase, for example, mentions C++ in its description.


For a list of portfiles that use the compilers 1.0 portgroup, which creates compiler variants, which might include gcc variants if requested by the port, run:

port file all|sort -u|xargs grep -l 'PortGroup.*compilers.*1\.0'

Again probably not all of these contain C++ code, but I'll bet some of them do.