1 |
On 10/08/16 01:39, Lei Zhang wrote: |
2 |
> 2016-08-09 13:58 GMT+08:00 Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>: |
3 |
>> As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and |
4 |
>> not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored |
5 |
>> towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also for the environment. With |
6 |
>> clang, from my experience, you just want it as drop-in replacement for |
7 |
>> gcc as it doesn't give you too much issues (on Darwin at least). |
8 |
> In its current form, gcc-config specializes in handling different |
9 |
> versions of gcc. If we extend it to cover other compilers (and rename |
10 |
> it to cc-config as James suggested), should it handle different |
11 |
> versions of clang? What about different versions of icc? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> I'm just afraid gcc-config would become too complex that way, so I |
14 |
> prefer a simpler approach: let eselect-compiler be version-agnostic. |
15 |
> Then we can have clang-config to handle the versioning of clang, |
16 |
> icc-config to handle icc, etc. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Lei |
20 |
> |
21 |
Extending the ideas presented in this thread .. you could introduce |
22 |
cc-config, and which utility script it runs would then be governed by |
23 |
eselect compiler .. eg. gcc would have gcc-config, clang would run |
24 |
clang-config .. |