> I wonder if the SDK path is
> baked into llvm-config-mp-7.0?
Yep -- sheesh. Is there no end to this?
Ken
$ llvm-config-mp-7.0 --cflags
-I/opt/universalnew/libexec/llvm-7.0/include -pipe -Os
Interesting, what we're setting in the environment is being ignored and
the -isysroot flag for the nonexistent path is added. I can't reproduce
the problem with default llvm80 variant. I wonder if the SDK path is
baked into llvm-config-mp-7.0?
Please file a ticket.
- Josh
On 2019-10-8 15:37 ,
On 2019-10-8 15:25 , Aaron Madlon-Kay wrote:
>> [-Wmissing-sysroot]
>> :info:build clang: warning: no such sysroot directory:
>> '/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.14.sdk'
>
> I had the same errors with poppler. I fixed it by copying the
> [-Wmissing-sysroot]
> :info:build clang: warning: no such sysroot directory:
> '/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Platforms/MacOSX.platform/Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.14.sdk'
I had the same errors with poppler. I fixed it by copying the
MacOSX10.14.sdk from Xcode 10 into my Xcode 11
On 2019-10-8 13:28 , Thomas R. Murphy wrote:
> Trying to upgrade cctools 921_3 < 921_4
>
> macOS 10.14.6 (10G103), Xcode 11.0 (11A420a). I opened Xcode and
> installed the additional tools as prompted to no effect.
>
> Output message snippet from main.log for the build:
> Any idea as to why
Trying to upgrade cctools 921_3 < 921_4
macOS 10.14.6 (10G103), Xcode 11.0 (11A420a). I opened Xcode and
installed the additional tools as prompted to no effect.
Output message snippet from main.log for the build:
:info:build /usr/bin/clang -Os -std=gnu99 -Os -DLTO_SUPPORT -g
-I../../include
It recently came up that base should always add the macports-gcc
compilers to the fallback list on ppc. What's less clear is what should
be done on Intel 10.5 and 10.4.
Does anyone know with certainty:
1. Which versions of macports-clang (if any) work on these platforms
without any
Hi,
( Did you really have to forward this on to the devel list ;) ?)
I apologize if you took any offence, but honestly you read more into
them than intended.
My first comment was really just I was not in the mood at the time to
debate what (I thought at the time) in the end boils down to a
