On Dec 22, 2013, at 3:11 , Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote:
Hey Ryan --
Thanks for looking into this.
> This will unnecessarily make users of Xcode < 5 install the llvm-gcc42 port,
> when they have a perfectly good version of llvm-gcc42 provided by Xcode.
> Rather than this, you should use compiler.blacklist. For example, if no clang
> compiler will work, blacklist all of them with:
>
> compiler.blacklist *clang*
I think I'd need 'compiler.whitelist macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 llvm-gcc-4.2' to
make sure I always get a consistent compiler? There's an extensive test suite I
ran with a JVM built against llvm-gcc4.2, and I hesitate to throw any variables
into the mix.
> MacPorts will pick the next-best compiler, which will be llvm-gcc42, either
> the version provided by Xcode or the one provided by MacPorts, depending on
> what’s available. You can then use the variables ${configure.cc},
> ${configure.cxx}, etc. where you need them.
Will this actually work with llvm-gcc? Apple is still shipping 'gcc' and
'llvm-gcc' binaries/symlinks, but they're pointed at clang; won't
find_developer_tool still pick them up?
landonf@lambda:~> llvm-gcc -v
Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn)
landonf@lambda:~> llvm-gcc --help
OVERVIEW: clang LLVM compiler
[snip]
landonf@lambda:~> gcc -v
Configured with:
--prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr
--with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn)
landonf@lambda:~> gcc --help
OVERVIEW: clang LLVM compiler
[snip]
Shipping an incompatible compiler as 'gcc' and 'llvm-gcc' was an absolutely
ridiculous decision on the part of Apple's developer tools team, but they
didn't ask me.
-landonf
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
