Re: Minimum gcc and clang supported to generate FreeBSD binaries

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 10:47 PM Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 06:26:12PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 2024, at 6:01 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Ah, but what do you say about tcc and pcc which are't gcc? Well, tcc
> lies, and says it supports gcc (version 9 I think, but it's been a while
> since I checked). tcc can't work today because we have qsort.h using
> versioned symbols unconditionally, and it doesn't support versioned
> symbols.... And patches to do that have been stalled for reasons unrelated
> to this desire. pcc doesn't support gnuc symbols at all last I checked. But
> it has real issues building some things in the tree, so I'll not gate
> things by it unless somebody steps up to actually do the work to make it
> work. The pcc upstream has been weird lately too.
>

pcc supports up through gcc 4.3 __attributes__ fyi.


> > Why are versioned symbols required for qsort.h?
> Look at the qsort_r() stuff in stdlib.h to maintain backward compat
> with previous definition of qsort_r() comparator.
>
> I think that for the purposes of keeping some support for tcc or whatever
> not-quite-gcc compiler, we should just avoid doing the backward-compat
> dance,
> if such compiler is detected.
>

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D45651 is a good, minimal patch to do that. A
more extensive
patch would not define the symver macro for tcc (so any uses we'd catch
right away) and
change the ifndef __TCC__ to ifdef symver.

Warner