Looks good.
Thanks.
On Jan 22, 2012, at 14:18, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me
We might further simplify the block like so:
if {${configure.compiler} == llvm-gcc-4.2} {
configure.compiler gcc-4.2
} elseif
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me
We might further simplify the block like so:
if {${configure.compiler} == llvm-gcc-4.2} {
configure.compiler gcc-4.2
} elseif {${configure.compiler} ==
Might it be advantageous to use a PortGroup for this?
Thinking something like this?
PortGroup badcompilers 1.0
# Avoid these compilers
options.avoid
default options.avoid
...
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
On Jan 23, 2012, at 1:55 PM, Jeremy Lavergne wrote:
Might it be advantageous to use a PortGroup for this?
Thinking something like this?
PortGroup badcompilers 1.0
# Avoid these compilers
options.avoid
default options.avoid
...
I was thinking of writing the compiler
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 01:52:53PM -0800, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
Might it be advantageous to use a PortGroup for this?
Isn't this covered by compiler.blacklist in trunk (r88676)? I suppose
except for the fact that it doesn't automatically add a dependency on
any necessary gcc port.
We're
On Jan 23, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Bradley Giesbrecht wrote:
On Jan 22, 2012, at 2:18 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me
We might further simplify the block like so:
if {${configure.compiler} == llvm-gcc-4.2} {
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me
We might further simplify the block like so:
if {${configure.compiler} == llvm-gcc-4.2} {
configure.compiler gcc-4.2
} elseif {${configure.compiler} == clang} {
depends_build-append port:apple-gcc42
That looks good to me, but I would very much like to know what ports fall into
this category, so I can check if this is still the case with top-of-tree clang
and file a bug against the compiler if necessary.
I know wine falls into this category, but most normal ports should be fine
with clang
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me, but I would very much like to know what ports fall
into this category, so I can check if this is still the case with top-of-tree
clang and file a bug against the compiler if necessary.
I know wine falls into this
On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 05:46:58PM -0600, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
It's just so tedious. I don't have time to file all these bug reports
and keep track of what versions of clang work. I'm happy if we can
commit a fix, any fix, that lets a port compile.
A lot of those problems are only caused by
On Jan 17, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jan 17, 2012, at 17:43, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
That looks good to me, but I would very much like to know what ports fall
into this category, so I can check if this is still the case with
top-of-tree clang and file a bug against the
On this page:
https://trac.macports.org/wiki/PortfileRecipes#compiler
We have this block of code we recommend portfile authors use when neither clang
nor llvm-gcc-4.2 will work, to fall back to gcc-4.2 if that exists, or install
and use apple-gcc42 if not:
if {${configure.compiler} == clang
12 matches
Mail list logo
