> On Oct 31, 2019, at 14:30, Hans Åberg via cfe-users
> <cfe-users@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 22:07, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 1:51 PM Hans Åberg <haber...@telia.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31 Oct 2019, at 21:40, David Blaikie <dblai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Such that it's not practical for the compiler developers to do all the leg
>>>> work of investigating 3rd party code bugs to determine if it's a bug in
>>>> the compiler. It doesn't scale/we wouldn't have any time to work on the
>>>> compiler & most of the time we'd be finding user bugs, not compiler bugs.
>>>
>>> The GMP developers feel exactly the same, dropping Clang support. It is
>>> mostly a problem for MacOS users that do not have access to GCC.
>>
>> Yep, that's certainly their call - there's a cost to maintaining
>> compatibility with each compiler/toolchain/platform, etc.
>
> Yes, it involves hard study of the various CPUs used.
>
>> If you have a personal interest in GMP on MacOS, then perhaps the cost falls
>> to you, if you're willing to pay it, to investigate this sort of thing &
>> help support this particular library+compiler combination, if it's worth
>> your time to do so.
>
> Both GCC and Clang can be conveniently installed using MacPorts. The Apple
> inhouse clang is weird.
I haven’t followed the rest of this thread closely, but do you have a reference
for the GMP developers abandoning Clang on macOS? Or were you referring to
their comment about Clang on the page I linked? Personally I regularly use GMP
with a macOS-supplied Clang without any issues. Admittedly not for any extreme
numerical computation, but my experience is that GMP works fine in this
scenario.
_______________________________________________
cfe-users mailing list
cfe-users@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-users
