On 08/09/2016 12:58 AM, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 08-08-2016 13:45:07 -0500, R0b0t1 wrote:
On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Lei Zhang <zhanglei.ap...@gmail.com> wrote:
"cc" is the standard C compiler name defined in POSIX, so ideally any
gcc-agnostic programs should use "cc" instead of "gcc". Practically,
build tools like GNU Make and CMake would be affected as they use "cc"
implicitly.
It is not just programs which rely on GNU extensions, but poorly
created scripts that rely on a compiler directly or otherwise break
portability.
I'd agree and say "gcc" is hardcoded in many places, that's why I
believe Apple includes a gcc which is clang on their systems, same for
cc.
As a question to Lei, I'm wondering why you chose eselect compiler, and
not gcc-config to manage the links. In a way, gcc-config is tailored
towards gcc, but it does a lot of things also for the environment. With
clang, from my experience, you just want it as drop-in replacement for
gcc as it doesn't give you too much issues (on Darwin at least).
Fabian
There are many things afoot with compilers, particularly related to
distributed and tightly coupled parallel systems. Perhaps a name change
from gcc-config to cc-config would be more accurate or better if that
aspect of choice is to accurately reflect the choices going forward?
Also, when you get down to smaller microprocessor levels there are often
numerous choices for compilers. Granted, today, most of those are still
commercial, but, pressure over time could very likely see many of those
compilers going the open source route, confounding the choice issue for
a more open naming convention for gcc-config?
hth,
James
