1 |
On 08/08/2016 10:58 PM, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> On 08-08-2016 13:45:07 -0500, R0b0t1 wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Lei Zhang <zhanglei.april@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> "cc" is the standard C compiler name defined in POSIX, so ideally any |
5 |
>>> gcc-agnostic programs should use "cc" instead of "gcc". Practically, |
6 |
>>> build tools like GNU Make and CMake would be affected as they use "cc" |
7 |
>>> implicitly. |
8 |
>> |
9 |
>> It is not just programs which rely on GNU extensions, but poorly |
10 |
>> created scripts that rely on a compiler directly or otherwise break |
11 |
>> portability. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I'd agree and say "gcc" is hardcoded in many places, that's why I |
14 |
> believe Apple includes a gcc which is clang on their systems, same for |
15 |
> cc. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and |
18 |
> not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored |
19 |
> towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also for the environment. With |
20 |
> clang, from my experience, you just want it as drop-in replacement for |
21 |
> gcc as it doesn't give you too much issues (on Darwin at least). |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Fabian |
24 |
> |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
I'm guessing you Darwin folks don't compile many Linux kernels? The last |
28 |
I heard, clang is not yet a drop-in replacement for gcc when building |
29 |
the Linux kernel: |
30 |
|
31 |
http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page |
32 |
-- |
33 |
Thanks, |
34 |
Zac |