On Apr 8, 2014, at 07:13, Mojca Miklavec wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >> >> The point is you wouldn’t be mixing C++ runtimes. On 10.8 and earlier, the >> C++ runtime is libstdc++, just as gcc48’s is. They’re different versions of >> libstdc++, but sometimes they’re similar enough to still work together. > > Does that mean that it makes sense to report bugs/problems when > binaries compiled with gcc48 crash (or when compilation crashes)? > Would anyone care at all to look into these problems? > > Or just that it's worth trying ... and not be disappointed in case of > problems?
I’d say the latter. Whereas mixing libc++ and libstdc++ fails at compiling already, miking Apple’s old libstdc++ and gcc48’s new libstdc++ may work, or it may cause crashes; if the latter, that’s just the way it is. > Mojca > > PS: It's not an issue of me personally upgrading the OS. I'll do that > sooner or later. But it would be slightly suboptimal if the port only > worked on 10.9. Personally, I feel that the cleanest solution is that C++11 code requires OS X 10.9 or later, unfortunately. _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
