On 08/08/2016 10:58 PM, 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
>
>
I'm guessing you Darwin folks don't compile many Linux kernels? The last
I heard, clang is not yet a drop-in replacement for gcc when building
the Linux kernel:
http://llvm.linuxfoundation.org/index.php/Main_Page
--
Thanks,
Zac
