Llvm/Clang 3.2 maybe a bit old. I used 3.4 from http://llvm.org/apt/ and stuff is working great. No reason to build clang/llvm
install llvm-3.4 clang-3.4 lldb-3.4 Sent from my iPad > On Dec 27, 2013, at 7:58 AM, Ivan Vučica <[email protected]> wrote: > > Languages are supported, it's just the runtime that is missing ;-) > > And the runtime should be available in gobjc package. I used to even compile > code targeting whatever GNUstep was in Debian using clang by hacking around > inside Debian's gnustep-make. > > Not that I encourage that; everyone should use David's libobjc2 which, to the > best of my knowledge, is not in Debian. > > Also, building clang is a good idea in the sense that new features might have > not trickled down into Debian and Ubuntu yet. > >> On 27 Dec 2013 12:29, "Markus Hitter" <[email protected]> wrote: >> Chiming in here, clang as well as llvm are packaged for Debian/Ubuntu, >> so in principle, there should be no reason to build them at all. >> >> The problem is, while the package descriptions describe clang and llvm >> to support C, C++, Obj-C and Obj-C++, it apparently does not really do >> so. When trying to compile with them anyways, a missing objc/runtime.h >> is reported. >> >> What I mean is, filing a bug against these packages to actually support >> what they promise would be another way to solve the issue. >> >> >> Markus >> >> -- >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter >> http://www.reprap-diy.com/ >> http://www.jump-ing.de/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss-gnustep mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnustep mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnustep mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
