dim added a comment.
@imp, so are your concerns now addressed? I didn't expect many ports to fail,
and there were just a handful, three of which were actual errors (they indended
to run ${CC}, but somebody typo'd CC instead).
REPOSITORY
rS FreeBSD src repository
REVISION DETAIL
dim added a comment.
An exp-run was requested in bug 200477 https://bugs.freebsd.org/200477. Out
of ~25000 ports, only 5 failed, and those have been trivially fixed.
The ports tree no longer requires CC to exist.
REPOSITORY
rS FreeBSD src repository
REVISION DETAIL
theraven added a comment.
It is problematic for the compiler to differentiate between being invoked as CC
and as cc (clang and gcc both have to work on case-insensitive filesystems).
The convention to have CC as an alias for c++ comes from some SysV platforms
(though not from Linux, which
kib added a subscriber: kib.
kib added a comment.
On what standard the name of the C++ compiler is based, at all ?
What are supposed benefits of the change ?
I believe I already noted elsewhere to dim that the CC is long-time established
name. Not all software built on FreeBSD live in the
imp added a comment.
CC has been an alias for the default C++ compiler the entire life FreeBSD has
had a C++ compiler.
Sure, it isn't based on any standards but it is a very de-facto standard that
many ports rely on.
FreeBSD isn't the only system to do this. Sun did this for years, as did SGI,
emaste added a comment.
In https://reviews.freebsd.org/D1932#49686, @imp wrote:
it is a very de-facto standard that many ports rely on.
Many ports will choose CC if it exists, but I'm not sure they rely on it.
Autoconf and cmake builds will try a list and if they pick c++ next they'll be
