In D54303#1241050, @markj wrote:

Approved. If this doesn't land soon, say in the next day or two, we should revert the original change until it does.

In D54104#1238790, @adamw wrote:

One question: should go:1.24 just mean go:1.24+? Do we foresee any reason that go:1.24 should bring in 1.24 when GO_VERSION == 1.25? Or would that lead to confusion?

You two have completely flipped me on the correct approach, and I'm now all-in on go.mk bringing in the right version for FreeBSD.org, not go.dev. I'm now wondering whether + should be more than just an optional feature. What do you two think?

LGTM

Could we yoink the logic from python.mk for this?

Patch looks fine. Approved for commit once you feel like you have tested it sufficiently.

There seems to be a stray gcc in the file.

Maybe both actually...

I recommend that instead of !defined(__cplusplus), maybe we do !defined(unreachable). This should also cover C codebases with their own unreachable macros and matches what we do for offsetof.

In D53975#1233980, @haraldei wrote:

In D53975#1233152, @fuz wrote:

For testing, the gold standard is to build the port and execute the test suite on as many platforms we support as possible, on all currently supported OS versions (that is, 13.5, 14.3, and 15.0).

Do I have access to, and can I use the ref*-machines for that?

I have run the tests on amd64, natively on my dev machine, and can probably get the aarch64 emulation up and running too soon. But it would be nice to be able to at least run the tests on real hardware too.