Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/06/2013 09:19 AM, Brad King wrote: > On second thought adding yet another dimension to the compiler > identification is just more complexity. We can use a separate > compiler for each variant and simply have the platform > information modules for each vendor include the upstream one. I've resolved this with a new AppleClang compiler id: Clang: Add separate "AppleClang" compiler id http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=ab658624 and a policy for compatibility with project code expecting the old id for the compiler: Add policy CMP0025 for Apple Clang compiler id compatibility http://cmake.org/gitweb?p=cmake.git;a=commitdiff;h=aa53ee57 -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On Thu, 15 Aug 2013 10:15:11 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer said: >http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=203678570&build=2998892 > >Looks like the headers are not those that belong to that version of >Clang, but older ones. To which headers do you refer? On that version of the OS and Xcode, I believe the default C++ library is libstdc++, not libc++; and it's a gcc 4.2 era libstd++, with limited C++11 support. Cheers, -- Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com Rogue Researchwww.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
Am 14.08.2013 08:12, schrieb Rolf Eike Beer: s...@rogue-research.com wrote: http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379 (MacOS 10.8) shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder what's going on there? That one is the open source clang, which I build from svn. It's not from Xcode. It's my 'bleeding edge' build machine. clang is always getting stricter and getting new warnings, so this help us fix them before a CMake/VTK/ITK release. Ok, then I assume that this is complaining about something in my test files. Could you tell me what went wrong here, please? http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=203511533&build=2997654 http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=203678570&build=2998892 Looks like the headers are not those that belong to that version of Clang, but older ones. Eike -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
s...@rogue-research.com wrote: > > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379 > > > > (MacOS 10.8) > > > > shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder > > what's > > going on there? > > That one is the open source clang, which I build from svn. It's not from > Xcode. It's my 'bleeding edge' build machine. clang is always getting > stricter and getting new warnings, so this help us fix them before a > CMake/VTK/ITK release. Ok, then I assume that this is complaining about something in my test files. Could you tell me what went wrong here, please? http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=203511533&build=2997654 Eike -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 03:45 PM, Brad King wrote: > One of the main purposes of the compiler is to load platform > modules like "Platform/--" and "Compiler/-". > Most of the information in these files will be identical across > the upstream and vendor-specific Clang distributions so having a > separate compiler id may lead to confusion and duplication. > > Another approach is to introduce a CMAKE__COMPILER_VENDOR > variable to name the vendor (or _VARIANT?). On second thought adding yet another dimension to the compiler identification is just more complexity. We can use a separate compiler for each variant and simply have the platform information modules for each vendor include the upstream one. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 04:24 PM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=202256403&build=2988951 > > Is that another case? Maybe a clang that is misdetected as gcc? For such an > old gcc version it has a whole lot of features that are not really expected > to > be there. It is Xcode 4.3 with LLVM GCC 4.2: /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr/bin/llvm-g++-4.2 It is the GCC front-end with LLVM back-end. I don't know how much Apple extending has been done. The --version output is: i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-g++-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5658) (LLVM build 2336.9.00) -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
Brad King wrote: > On 08/05/2013 02:08 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > > s...@rogue-research.com wrote: > >> very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme. So > >> that's "Apple clang 4.0". It comes with whatever version of Xcode that > >> machine's running (4.4 I think?). > > > > any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test is entirely mood > > for Clang. > We need to fix this somehow or CMAKE_*_COMPILER_VERSION will be > useless for Clang. Sean, is there any way to extract the underlying > Clang version, perhaps with different preprocessor macros? We at > least need to be able to detect which version scheme is in use so > we can report it somehow. http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=202256403&build=2988951 Is that another case? Maybe a clang that is misdetected as gcc? For such an old gcc version it has a whole lot of features that are not really expected to be there. Eike -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 03:28 PM, Brad King wrote: > I also see __apple_build_version__ in that output. Searching > for it finds that it is used for this purpose in Qt: > > https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/26c7bb25 > > but seems to be undocumented in general. Will that work? > >> Embarcadero's compiler is also based on clang, how do you deal with it? > > We don't support Clang-based Embarcadero compilers yet AFAIK. > However, this demonstrates that we will need a compiler id for > each vendor that distributes a modified Clang. With a separate > compiler id then version comparisons can become meaningful again. One of the main purposes of the compiler is to load platform modules like "Platform/--" and "Compiler/-". Most of the information in these files will be identical across the upstream and vendor-specific Clang distributions so having a separate compiler id may lead to confusion and duplication. Another approach is to introduce a CMAKE__COMPILER_VENDOR variable to name the vendor (or _VARIANT?). This would allow code that needs to know the difference to detect it but otherwise stay out of the way. Then the order of most granular to least granular compiler identification would be ID > VENDOR > VERSION. What would we do with compilers where the ID implies the VENDOR, though? Comments? -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 11:33 AM, Sean McBride wrote: > In my own build of open source clang from svn trunk, it seems that > __APPLE_CC__ is defined: > > $ clang -dM -E - < /dev/null > > #define __APPLE_CC__ 5621 > > So I don't think that will help. I also see __apple_build_version__ in that output. Searching for it finds that it is used for this purpose in Qt: https://qt.gitorious.org/qt/qtbase/commit/26c7bb25 but seems to be undocumented in general. Will that work? > Embarcadero's compiler is also based on clang, how do you deal with it? We don't support Clang-based Embarcadero compilers yet AFAIK. However, this demonstrates that we will need a compiler id for each vendor that distributes a modified Clang. With a separate compiler id then version comparisons can become meaningful again. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
Sean McBride wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:08:20 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer said:
> >So
> >any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test ("I have compiler
> >version X, the supported features should be ...") is entirely mood for
> >Clang. Great.
>
> Well, I don't know what we're really talking about here... but it sounds
> like you're trying to determine a compiler's features based on its version
> number. That's inherently pretty fragile, don't you agree?
>
> I do know that the clang folks discourage trying to determine clang's
> abilities from its version number. Instead, they have a mechanism called
> 'Feature Checking Macros' described here:
>
>
That could be something for both the testcase as well as the feature checks.
I'll see if I can come up with a good solution to that.
The "which feature does match $version" is just a testcase thing to see if the
module gives the expected results.
Eike
--
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 09:44:00 -0400, Brad King said: >and local testing we can use __APPLE_CC__ to detect Apple compiler >builds. In my own build of open source clang from svn trunk, it seems that __APPLE_CC__ is defined: $ clang -dM -E - < /dev/null #define __APPLE_CC__ 5621 So I don't think that will help. >We could consider treating this as a separate compiler and using >a new compiler id like ClangApple or AppleClang or something. That's probably a good idea... Embarcadero's compiler is also based on clang, how do you deal with it? I guess if the output of 'clang --version' includes the string 'Apple', it's "AppleClang" and not "clang". But I think it may be a good idea to ask on cfe-dev or xcode-users mailing lists too... Cheers, -- Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com Rogue Researchwww.rogue-research.com Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 10:53 AM, Sean McBride wrote: > Well, I don't know what we're really talking about here... but it sounds like > you're trying to determine a compiler's features based on its version number. > That's inherently pretty fragile, don't you agree? Regardless of that, if I ask someone 5 years from now what version of the compiler they are using and they say CMake reports "4.2" how do I know if they mean upstream 4.2 or Apple 4.2? See my other proposals in this thread. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On Mon, 5 Aug 2013 08:08:20 +0200, Rolf Eike Beer said:
>So
>any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test ("I have compiler
>version X, the supported features should be ...") is entirely mood for Clang.
>Great.
Well, I don't know what we're really talking about here... but it sounds like
you're trying to determine a compiler's features based on its version number.
That's inherently pretty fragile, don't you agree?
I do know that the clang folks discourage trying to determine clang's abilities
from its version number. Instead, they have a mechanism called 'Feature
Checking Macros' described here:
Cheers,
--
Sean McBride, B. Eng s...@rogue-research.com
Rogue Researchwww.rogue-research.com
Mac Software Developer Montréal, Québec, Canada
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 09:26 AM, Stephen Kelly wrote: > Brad King wrote: >> We need to fix this somehow or CMAKE_*_COMPILER_VERSION will be >> useless for Clang. Sean, is there any way to extract the underlying >> Clang version, perhaps with different preprocessor macros? We at >> least need to be able to detect which version scheme is in use so >> we can report it somehow. According to https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/porting/conceptual/portingunix/compiling/compiling.html and local testing we can use __APPLE_CC__ to detect Apple compiler builds. > This might lead to a solution: > > https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/6419 That shows a difference in the version string reported from the compiler but AFAICT there is no way to determine the "based on" version from the preprocessor. Also any preprocessor tests in C/C++ code that use __clang_major__ for anything will get incorrect results. It would have to be first conditioned on __APPLE_CC__ to know how to interpret the version number. We could consider treating this as a separate compiler and using a new compiler id like ClangApple or AppleClang or something. -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
Brad King wrote: > On 08/05/2013 02:08 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: >> s...@rogue-research.com wrote: >>> very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme. So >>> that's "Apple clang 4.0". It comes with whatever version of Xcode that >>> machine's running (4.4 I think?). >> >> any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test is entirely mood >> for Clang. > > We need to fix this somehow or CMAKE_*_COMPILER_VERSION will be > useless for Clang. Sean, is there any way to extract the underlying > Clang version, perhaps with different preprocessor macros? We at > least need to be able to detect which version scheme is in use so > we can report it somehow. This might lead to a solution: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/issues/6419 Thanks, Steve. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
On 08/05/2013 02:08 AM, Rolf Eike Beer wrote: > s...@rogue-research.com wrote: >> very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme. So >> that's "Apple clang 4.0". It comes with whatever version of Xcode that >> machine's running (4.4 I think?). > > any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test is entirely mood for > Clang. We need to fix this somehow or CMAKE_*_COMPILER_VERSION will be useless for Clang. Sean, is there any way to extract the underlying Clang version, perhaps with different preprocessor macros? We at least need to be able to detect which version scheme is in use so we can report it somehow. Thanks, -Brad -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
s...@rogue-research.com wrote:
> Yeah, it's confusing... :(
>
> > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937899&build=2986383
> >
> > (MacOS 10.7)
> >
> > The CXX compiler identification is Clang 4.0.0
> >
> > I do not believe that.
>
> Apple has their own fork/branch of clang which they use in Xcode. AFAICT
> it's not so different from the open source one, it's probably more to do
> with them not wanting to tie Xcode's release schedule to clang's. Anyway,
> very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme. So
> that's "Apple clang 4.0". It comes with whatever version of Xcode that
> machine's running (4.4 I think?).
Wow, this idea is so awesome, they probably should file a patent for it. So
any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test ("I have compiler
version X, the supported features should be ...") is entirely mood for Clang.
Great.
> > Especially as
> >
> > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379
> >
> > (MacOS 10.8)
> >
> > shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder
> > what's
> > going on there?
>
> That one is the open source clang, which I build from svn. It's not from
> Xcode. It's my 'bleeding edge' build machine. clang is always getting
> stricter and getting new warnings, so this help us fix them before a
> CMake/VTK/ITK release.
Fine. Why don't they name it 3.3.99 then? ;)
Eike
--
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
--
Powered by www.kitware.com
Visit other Kitware open-source projects at
http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html
Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at:
http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ
Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe:
http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
Yeah, it's confusing... :( > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937899&build=2986383 > > (MacOS 10.7) > > The CXX compiler identification is Clang 4.0.0 > > I do not believe that. Apple has their own fork/branch of clang which they use in Xcode. AFAICT it's not so different from the open source one, it's probably more to do with them not wanting to tie Xcode's release schedule to clang's. Anyway, very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme. So that's "Apple clang 4.0". It comes with whatever version of Xcode that machine's running (4.4 I think?). > Especially as > > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379 > > (MacOS 10.8) > > shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder > what's > going on there? That one is the open source clang, which I build from svn. It's not from Xcode. It's my 'bleeding edge' build machine. clang is always getting stricter and getting new warnings, so this help us fix them before a CMake/VTK/ITK release. Sean -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
Re: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
That's a Rogue Research machine. Don't doubt it. :-) Sean McBride uses custom builds of clang on some of the Rogue machines. I'm sure he'll chime in here. (If he hasn't already, and I just missed it...) -Original Message- From: Rolf Eike Beer To: cmake-developers Sent: Sat, Aug 3, 2013 11:05 pm Subject: [cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937899&build=2986383 (MacOS 10.7) The CXX compiler identification is Clang 4.0.0 I do not believe that. Especially as http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379 (MacOS 10.8) shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder what's going on there? Eike -- -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
[cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions
http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937899&build=2986383 (MacOS 10.7) The CXX compiler identification is Clang 4.0.0 I do not believe that. Especially as http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379 (MacOS 10.8) shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder what's going on there? Eike -- signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -- Powered by www.kitware.com Visit other Kitware open-source projects at http://www.kitware.com/opensource/opensource.html Please keep messages on-topic and check the CMake FAQ at: http://www.cmake.org/Wiki/CMake_FAQ Follow this link to subscribe/unsubscribe: http://public.kitware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cmake-developers
