> On Sep 28, 2024, at 9:29 PM, Ken Cunningham <[email protected]> > wrote: > > the libcxx port is used currently only 10.5 and 10.6 Intel systems. > > It gives them a system libcxx installed as /usr/lib/libc++.dylib and > /usr/lib/libc++abi.dylib that is quite a bit newer than what is installed on > 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, or 10.10. I forget about where it comes in -- 10.13 is my > best guess. gotcha > > For any of those systems where libc++ is too old, we use macports-libcxx. It > has some warts -- certain things break when using macports-libcxx. But most > things work. i saw that ticket by barracuda or whatever name he chooses to use (lol), the ticket with the -nostdinc. i experienced similar wonkiness when trying to using the legacysupport.use_mp_libcxx yes flag. however i have yet to encounter a case of failure yet when i manually add -L/opt/local/lib/libc++ to the LDFLAGS and build, assuming the issue was related to an older libc++ > Changing the libcxx port to use the libc++ from clang-11/llvm-11 will make it > newer, of course, affecting only 10.5 and 10.6 Intel. This will come at the > cost of a more complicated bootstrap procedure and quite possibly some > incompatible software might be found. > > So -- personally I would leave libcxx alone, probably forever, and let it be > as is. > i understand what you’re saying so i guess that’s fine. i thought it was for powerpc machines, but if it’s for early intel machines then the nomenclature makes more sense. > But there is a discussion to be had about the ups and downs of making that a > newer libc++ for 10.5. and 10.6, sure... > in my opinion, and while it’s clear the lack of weak references and thread local storage in 10.6 is a disadvantage, they aren’t things that are insurmountable. -the lack of libdispatch in 10.5, however, makes things challenging. > because of the way things work, anything that needs a newer libc++ than what > is on 10.7 will still need to force macports-libcxx anyway on 10.5 and 10.6, > so ... questionably beneficial. this is why i proposed the renaming. i did an otool -L on all of the stuff in /opt/local/libexec/clang-11 and none of it is tied to the libcxx, but then i saw they were static, so your commentary has illuminated the situation greatly. we’re sitting on a gold mine and it’s like such a shock we’re letting those BREWsers (brew losers) just take our spot. something must be done about this. they are losers. yes i did just “ad hominem” them (i bet they like richard dawkins too, like real losers do) > > K > > > > >> On Sep 28, 2024, at 6:49 PM, Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> i just wanted to follow up on this a little. >> >> i noticed that *macports-libcxx* is the ‘good one’ and libcxx is the ‘old >> one’. >> >> macports-libcxx+universal takes quite a while to install since it builds >> llvm-11 from scratch, but i suspect it’s worth it. >> >> i think a discussion needs to happen to rename ken’s port to libcxx, and the >> latter to something that conveys since macports users should be pointed to >> his port before the existing one. >> >> i really think macports-libcxx should replace libcxx. i noticed ken has >> added himself to the open tickets on libcxx and also christopher chavez has >> asked questions about its usefulness. >> >> put briefly: i found libcxx to be unhelpful when (successfully) building >> nodejs14/18, opting to link in llvm’s libcxx from /opt/libexec >> >> flat out, libcxx is ’too old’ to deserve retention of the primary name for a >> crucial library on macports. >> -i noticed that ken removed himself from maintaining libcxx since it’s >> for snow leopard and older. >> >> https://github.com/macports/macports-ports/commit/8ce65b33a1970046bdcb22ee86227301427d6135 >> >> i therefore think this should be on “the council”’s next meeting minutes. >> -thanks for all your hard work btw ken. i have to buy a beater sata ssd >> to start testing portfile edits with your macports-libcxx. >> -it is a travesty this hasn’t been massaged into the entire >> list of ports. >> >> to have nodejs14/18/gdb/etc all on an “old” 10.7 install really speaks to >> ethos of this package manager and, at one time, this operating system. >> >> nice job man. >> >> Thanks, >> Gagan >> >>> On Sep 25, 2024, at 2:14 PM, Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> thanks ken. i am aware of this library, but i’ve never used it outside of >>> building clang with the +libstdcxx flag. >>> >>> i guess this may be a case of updating some portfiles to use this flag. >>> >>> doesn't nodejs18 have this portgroup enabled? i see >>> >>>> PortGroup legacysupport 1.1 >>> >>> >>> and >>> >>>> [legacysupport::get_library_link_flags] >>> >>> >>> in the LDFLAGS. >>> >>> i assumed that meant it was included. or must >>> >>>> legacysupport.use_mp_libcxx yes >>> >>> >>> still be added? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Gagan >>> >>>> On Sep 25, 2024, at 2:05 PM, Ken Cunningham >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> check out: >>>> >>>> https://ports.macports.org/port/macports-libcxx/ >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Sep 25, 2024, at 12:22 PM, Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev >>>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> … but i guess we’re shorthanded. >>>>> >>>>> today i built nodejs18 with a couple of flags anyone could find if they >>>>> attempted it (after removing the OS check via sudo port edit), and then >>>>> hard-coding (lol it was a test) -L/opt/local/libexec/llvm-17/lib/libc++ >>>>> >>>>> it works completely fine if i put that path on LD_LIBRARY_PATH (“just?” >>>>> lol) >>>>> - i know that’s a huge siren for the maintainers here lol, i get it, but >>>>> the point isn’t that this version was ready for distribution) >>>>> >>>>> given the static libc++ included in the ports llvm, it seems to me there >>>>> is a tonne of opportunity to use the static libc++ from newer llvms to >>>>> supplement the older /usr/lib/libc++ to take our game to the next level. >>>>> >>>>> of course it may not be that simple. i’m far from a compiler expert, >>>>> acknowledge the library name clash of /usr/lib/libc++ and the static in >>>>> /opt/local/libexec/llvm-<version>, and this may be what the macports >>>>> libc++ was designed to alleviate. >>>>> >>>>> i just thought it was pretty interesting to have a newish node on an >>>>> “old” OS with relatively little effort. >>>>> - i bet this experience would apply to a lot of ports, hence my first >>>>> line (underhanded). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Gagan >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Re: seems to be a tonne of opportunity to smoke fink
Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev Sat, 28 Sep 2024 20:47:27 -0700
- seems to be a tonne of opportunity to smoke f... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be a tonne of opportunity t... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be a tonne of opportuni... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be a tonne of oppor... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be a tonne of o... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be a tonne... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be a t... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be... Ken Cunningham
- Re: seems to be... Ryan Carsten Schmidt
- Re: seems to be... Gagan Sidhu via macports-dev
- Re: seems to be... Jim DeLaHunt
