Am 22.11.2012 00:19, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 17 November 2012 13:10, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> On 17 November 2012 13:02, Andreas Färber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: >>> Am 16.11.2012 17:37, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>>> +if test "$(uname -s)" = "Darwin"; then >>>> + # On MacOS X the standard supported system compiler is 'cc' (usually >>>> clang), >>>> + # and 'gcc' is a legacy llvm-gcc which is rather elderly and best >>>> avoided. >>> >>> This comment strikes me as wrong in this generality. It should at least >>> be qualified with OSX version numbers. >> >> How about "and if 'gcc' is not the same as 'cc' then it is a legacy llvm-gcc >> which is rather elderly and best avoided" ? I'd rather not get into having >> to research which versions of OSX shipped with which compiler as 'cc', >> when really the point is that 'cc' will always give you whichever compiler >> Apple thought was the best default for that version. > > Andreas: ping? are you happy with this suggested rephrasing?
Not quite... clang is a relatively new thing. On v10.5.8 ppc64 'cc' is a symlink to a real (well, Apple-flavoured) 'gcc-4.0'. What about "... (clang on recent systems) and 'gcc' may be a legacy llvm-gcc ..."? > Do you > think this is 1.3 material? (now the static-stublib stuff is in it's > less critical, but it still seems like the right idea...) I wouldn't be opposed to taking the default change into 1.3 as long as we can still override it to a specific compiler. But then again there's the question of why not doing it on Linux as well now that we seem to compile under clang, we have cc -> gcc-4.7 on openSUSE 12.2. Among our supported platforms only Solaris comes to my mind where cc might be an incompatible proprietary compiler. Andreas