James Hilliard <james.hillia...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:37 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I've found no direct means to control the
>> SDK path at all, but so far it appears that "xcrun --show-sdk-path"
>> agrees with the compiler's default -isysroot path as seen in the
>> compiler's -v output. I suspect that this isn't coincidental,
>> but reflects xcrun actually being used in the compiler launch
>> process. If it were to flip over to using a IOS SDK, that would
>> mean that bare "cc" would generate nonfunctional executables,
>> which just about any onlooker would agree is broken.
> So there's some more weirdness involved here, whether or not you
> have the command line install seems to affect the output of the
> "xcrun --show-sdk-path" command, but not the
> "xcrun --sdk macosx --show-sdk-path" command.
Yeah, that's what we discovered in the other thread. It seems that
with "--sdk macosx" you'll always get a pointer to the (solitary)
SDK under /Applications/Xcode.app, but with the short "xcrun
--show-sdk-path" command you might get either that or a pointer to
something under /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools.
I now believe what is actually happening with the short command is
that it's iterating through the available SDKs (according to some not
very clear search path) and picking the first one it finds that
matches the host system version. That matches the ktrace evidence
that shows it reading the SDKSettings.plist file in each SDK
directory. The fact that it can seize on either an actual directory
or an equivalent symlink might be due to chance ordering of directory
entries. (It'd be interesting to see "ls -f" output for your
/Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/SDKs directory ... though if
you've been experimenting with deinstall/reinstall, there's no
reason to suppose the entry order is still the same.)
I'm not sure that the case of not having the "command line tools"
installed is interesting for our purposes. AFAIK you have to have
that in order to have access to required tools like bison and gmake.
(That reminds me, I was intending to add something to our docs
about how-to-build-from-source to say that you need to install those.)
> Note that with my patch the binaries will always be compatible with the
> host system by default, even if the SDK is capable of producing binaries
> that are incompatible so building postgres works with and without the
> command line tools SDK.
Yeah. I don't see that as a benefit actually. Adding the
-no_weak_imports linker switch (or the other one you're suggesting)
means that you *cannot* cross-compile for a newer macOS version,
even if you set PG_SYSROOT and/or MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET with the
intention of doing so. You'll still get a build that reflects the set
of kernel calls available on the host system. Admittedly, this is a
case that's not likely to be of interest to very many people, but
I don't see why a method with that restriction is superior to picking
a default SDK that matches the host system (and can be overridden).
> So I think "xcrun --sdk macosx --show-sdk-path" is probably preferable
> but either should work as long as we can properly detect deployment
> target symbol availability, regardless this SDK sysroot selection issue is
> effectively an entirely different issue from the feature detection not
> properly
> respecting the configured deployment target.
No, I think it's pretty much equivalent. If we pick the right SDK
then we'll get the build we want.
regards, tom lane
