On 2015-10-13 04:49 , Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 23:15, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 11:14 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Revision >>> 141132 >>> Author >>> [email protected] >>> Date >>> 2015-10-11 09:14:38 -0700 (Sun, 11 Oct 2015) >>> Log Message >>> >>> apple-gcc42: Drop support on ElCap >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 11:15 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Revision >>> 141133 >>> Author >>> [email protected] >>> Date >>> 2015-10-11 09:15:20 -0700 (Sun, 11 Oct 2015) >>> Log Message >>> >>> llvm-gcc42: Drop support on ElCap >> >> >> On Oct 11, 2015, at 12:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: >> >>> Revision >>> 141134 >>> Author >>> [email protected] >>> Date >>> 2015-10-11 10:09:05 -0700 (Sun, 11 Oct 2015) >>> Log Message >>> >>> Refactor and update portconfigure::get_compiler_fallback >>> >>> Separate out list generation into stages for easier updates in the future. >>> Use newer clang versions when using libc++ as our default C++ runtime. >>> Don't add legacy gcc fallbacks on El Capitan. >> >> >> Any particular reason you removed apple-gcc42 and llvm-gcc42 on El Capitan? >> We only just released MacPorts 2.3.4 which finally returned apple-gcc42 and >> llvm-gcc42 to the list of available compilers for Xcode 6 and later >> (r140687). Reverting r141132, apple-gcc42 builds fine for me on 10.11, and >> reverting r141133, llvm-gcc42 builds fine for me with apple-gcc42 on 10.11. >> Are there situations where these compilers don't work correctly because of a >> change in El Capitan? > > They don't support C11 > They don't support C++11 > They don't support libc++
None of that has changed since Yosemite. > They've been deprecated for almost 5 years now. > I don't want to give the impression that we actually support this legacy > toolchain on modern systems; it's only purpose was to help build ports that > weren't building with clang. > If you don't want to drop support for them now, what do you consider a good > time? I'd prefer to not keep around legacy compilers if they're not actually > needed. So I guess I'll flip the question to you and ask if there's any > compelling reason why one would still need them on El Cap. Xcode 7's clang > (and indeed macports-clang-3.7) is a much more mature, robust, and reliable > compiler on El Cap than gcc-4.2. Nobody's suggesting putting them anywhere but last in the fallback list. There are still ports that won't build without them. Refusing to build them at all when they do work isn't helpful. Add notes if you want to make it crystal clear that nobody should be using these on recent systems if they can help it. If they break again in future, I doubt anyone will bother fixing them, and that's fine. - Josh _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
