Good morning! Chris - I suspected it just needed the flag as well. There were some cmake rearrangements recently in libomp.
Eric - it would not be a big deal to have libomp something needs to be specified by the libomp PortGroup we either have or will need to make libomp work right. By having it as a build/lilb/run dep for clang, that means libomp has to be built with the oldest, frailest, least capable, least optimizing compiler macports has available, rather than the current compiler. K > On Dec 5, 2020, at 6:55 AM, Eric Borisch <ebori...@macports.org> wrote: > > I’m fine moving either way (leave as a separate port, pinned to older > versions on older systems, or build it as part of each clang independently), > but I think removing it as something that comes along with MP’s clang would > be a mistake. > > Thanks, > - Eric > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 7:04 AM Ken Cunningham > <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com <mailto:ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>> > wrote: > the std:atomic thing was added in 2018, so something else seems funny... > clang-3.4 supports c++11 after all... > > libomp probably should not be a dependency of clang at all > > if it was separate from clang, it can be installed using the current > toolchain rathervthan block it > > K > > On Dec 5, 2020, at 04:56, Chris Jones <jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk > <mailto:jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk>> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The problem is simply the latest version uses std::atomic, which requires >> c++11, and the usual fix of requesting this c++ standard in the port file >> does not work due to the fact this port is a clang dependency, so using >> clang as a fallback compiler is not possible. >> >> Note, the port already installs a different version for some systems, those >> using libstdc++ >> >> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/lang/libomp/Portfile >> <https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/blob/master/lang/libomp/Portfile> >> >> So a relatively trivial fix would be to peg macOS 10.9 and older to the last >> version that builds there, version 10.x. Probably a bit simpler than having >> to deal with multiple libomp-X ports... >> >> Chris >> >>> On 5 Dec 2020, at 5:57 am, Ken Cunningham <ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:ken.cunningham.web...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> > >>>> Attempting to install supertux complains on libomp. >>>> >>>> Logfile shows compiler complaints about atomic and variable templates. >>>> >>> I noticed that the recent update to libomp-11 failed on 10.8 and 10.9 (and >>> 10.6 and less). >>> >>> This is not a big surprise — more likely a miracle that libomp up to 10.0 >>> built without trouble on every system. >>> >>> I will see if I can fix it — maybe I can — but even if so, libomp 12, 13, >>> or … will be unbuildable eventually. >>> >>> So we’ll need to come up with a libomp plan. There is really no reason (I >>> think) that we can only have one libomp — we could install the one that >>> comes with each llvm and then it would always work, I think. Eg clang-9 >>> would use libomp-9. >>> >>> Anyway, that is for the future. until libomp is fixed, every clang is dead >>> on 10.8 and 10.9 >>> >>> BUT — good news. clang (and most everything else) doesn’t really need >>> libomp anyway. I don’t even know why it is listed as a dependency, to be >>> honest. Just delete from the clang portfile, and you’re good to go again, I >>> think (haven’t tried it… but …). >>> >>> Ken