[WIP] arm-none-eabi-gcc: fix after isl update to 0.20

[mojca]

This fixed the build of arm-none-eabi-gcc after isl was updated to version 0.20 in f00fc27 (about a month ago).

• I strongly suspect that this is not the only port being affected.
• I suspect that we might need to add a dependency on isl to the crossgcc portgroup.

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=86724
Closes: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/57573

(There are also a number of other tickets for this port. The most annoying one is https://trac.macports.org/ticket/55213 - build failure on AFPS - due to which I had to restart the build about ten times. The number of repeated attempts needed is usually one, not sure why it was so annoying for this port, maybe due to newlib or due to a larger number of supported "architectures".)

Description

Type(s)

• bugfix
• enhancement
• security fix

Tested on

macOS 10.13.6 17G3025
Xcode 10.1 10B61

Verification

Have you

• 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?
  • I did not yet test the trace mode.
• tested basic functionality of all binary files?

[macportsbot]

Travis Build #4268 Passed.

Lint results

--->  Verifying Portfile for arm-none-eabi-gcc
--->  0 errors and 0 warnings found.

Port arm-none-eabi-gcc success on xcode9.4. Log
Port arm-none-eabi-gcc success on xcode8.3. Log
Port arm-none-eabi-gcc success on xcode7.3. Log

[mojca]

I'm sorry, I wasn't even paying enough attention. I see that this fix has already been applied in f00fc27 to all of the newer gcc ports (those which are compatible with isl 1.20 at least). I suspect this leaves all of the other crossgcc ports still broken?

[mojca]

@l2dy: wasn't Travis supposed to avoid fetching binary archives for the ports which are committed?

Not that I necessarily want to suggest changing this behaviour since most of the time the ports should be upgraded or revbumped anyway. Most likely this one needs a revbump as well?

[l2dy]

@l2dy: wasn't Travis supposed to avoid fetching binary archives for the ports which are committed?

Not that I necessarily want to suggest changing this behaviour since most of the time the ports should be upgraded or revbumped anyway. Most likely this one needs a revbump as well?

Yes… I haven't got the time to implement that. Will try next week.

[mojca]

@MarcusCalhoun-Lopez, @kencu?

[MarcusCalhoun-Lopez]

I am sorry I was not able to look at this sooner.
The only way I could get the cross compilers to work on my machine was to make more significant changes to more ports.
I have posted my work in a separate pull request.
The new pull request works for me, but I am not terribly knowledgable about cross compilers.
Unfortunately, the new pull request supersedes this one.

[mojca]

Closing as #3329 makes more sense.