| 1 |
On Wed, 07 Nov 2012 16:05:25 Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wednesday, November 7, 2012, Francois Bissey wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On 07/11/12 21:08, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > 07.11.2012, 07:03, "François Bissey" |
| 5 |
> > > <francois.bissey@×××××××××××××.nz<javascript:;>> > |
| 6 |
> > >> Hi, |
| 7 |
> > >> |
| 8 |
> > >> I have currently a prefix on OS X and I use gcc-apple. I tried a couple |
| 9 |
> > >> of times to use vanilla gcc which is currently masked but I had |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > problems. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > > You can unmask it and emerge, than use it as your default portage |
| 14 |
> > |
| 15 |
> > compiler. |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > Yes and it will regularly fail to compile stuff. I have tried it this |
| 19 |
> > afternoon and it failed to compile glib (that was gcc-4.6.3) it is |
| 20 |
> > masked for a reason. I am just wondering what we want to do long term |
| 21 |
> > because vanilla gcc seem to be unreliable. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> "We" do nothing. You can poke upstream of your favorite project to make the |
| 24 |
> software work with older compilers or provide patches. It is just |
| 25 |
> unreasonable to ask the downstream enabler to fix random projects. |
| 26 |
> -Jeremy |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I am still unsure if Jeremy was trolling basically saying that software should |
| 30 |
support ancient compilers and basically forgo new features or may be have |
| 31 |
a fall back (like that will happen especially with C++). |
| 32 |
Anyway I synced yesterday and the last victim is eix. I remember the days |
| 33 |
before eix - painfully. |
| 34 |
CXX=clang++ emerge -uv eix worked well but using gcc-apple failed miserably. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
A further question: Is it, in the interim of a better solution, OK to depend |
| 37 |
and set the compiler to clang on macos in a ebuild or should we just put a |
| 38 |
warning that they will have to set clang in pkg-setup? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Francois |
Archives