On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 01:16:17PM +0100, Klemens Nanni wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 03:02:26PM -0600, Tracey Emery wrote: > > Was I right to bump the REVISION on the two subs? > Bumping gcc is obvoiusly correct because you patched and therefore > changed the package; I'm not sure about gdb: does it's package change > as well because requires gcc sources at build time? > > If in doubt, bump - it's cheap and avoids problems. >
I bumped this because CONFIGURE_ARGS were tweaked to go with the BUILD_DEPENDS change. It seemed cheap and is a change in flags, which build flags are mentioned in the porting guide. > > I built this on amd64, sparc64 (generously borrowed from stsp and setup > > by jca ... thank you), and i386 platforms. > OK kn > > > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ > > +$OpenBSD$ > > + > > +Index: gcc/cp/cfns.h > Please add a comment describing *why* you do this; *what* often fails > to add value, but having a reason for patches in the description is > always helpful and also nice to see during `make patch' output. Added and mentally noted for future obscure or not obvious patches. Thanks! -- Tracey Emery
