crossgcc-1.0: Updated compiler blacklist gcc11

[Gcenx]

Conditionally append compiler blacklist for gcc11+ only

Added the missing compiler_blacklist_versions PortGroup without this the compiler just default to /usr/bin/clang (tested on OS X 10.9)

revision bumped i686-w64-mingw32-gcc & x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc

Closes https://trac.macports.org/ticket/62901

Description

This was tested on an OS X 10.9 VM, prior versions of mingw-bootstrap etc were removed prior to testing to ensure this worked correctly.

--->  Fetching distfiles for i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Verifying checksums for i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Extracting i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Applying patches to i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Configuring i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Building i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap
--->  Staging i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap into destroot
Warning: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap installs files outside the common directory structure.
--->  Installing i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap @11.1.0_0
--->  Activating i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap @11.1.0_0
--->  Cleaning i686-w64-mingw32-gcc-bootstrap

Type(s)

• bugfix
• enhancement

Tested on

macOS 10.9.5 13F1911 x86_64
Xcode Command Line Tools installed via xcode-select —install

xcode-select: error: tool 'xcodebuild' requires Xcode, but active developer directory '/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools' is a command line tools instance

Verification

• followed our Commit Message Guidelines?
• squashed and minimized your commits?
• checked that there aren't other open pull requests for the same change?
• referenced existing tickets on Trac with full URL?
• checked your Portfile with port lint?
• tried existing tests with sudo port test?
• tried a full install with sudo port -vst install?
• tested basic functionality of all binary files?

[macportsbot]

Notifying maintainers:
@mojca for port i686-w64-mingw32-gcc, x86_64-w64-mingw32-gcc.

[mojca]

We can build the ports on the buildbot manually once this gets merged. I see no reason for increasing the revision.

But if you do want to build them automatically, we can rename the patches instead to get rid of the lint warnings ;)

[mojca]

PS: I approved the review, but that still means that it makes sense to address the minor issues mentioned above before merging the code. I'm not sure how to un-approve before those minor items are handled, but I hope it doesn't really matter.

Thank you very much for handling this.

[Gcenx]

Removed the revision bumps, removed the comment from crossgcc, rather not touch gcc11 & gcc-devel but maybe @kencu can add the note for keeping crossgcc in sync.

[Gcenx]

We can build the ports on the buildbot manually once this gets merged. I see no reason for increasing the revision.

But if you do want to build them automatically, we can rename the patches instead to get rid of the lint warnings ;)

I missed this comment before, but that’s a good idea. But I won’t be near my system until I’m done with work.

Would that need to be in another PR or just modify this one?

[Gcenx]

Restored the “Taken from gcc11” comment.

[Gcenx]

@mojca & @kencu thoughts?

[kencu]

Very sorry, I don't know much about crossgcc.

[Gcenx]

Very sorry, I don't know much about crossgcc.

But you do know about gcc, the idea is to add a note within gcc11/gcc-devel (for it become gcc12 etc) to also keep crossgcc Portgroup in sync for compiler requirements.

For this PR I’d taken the information directly from gcc11.