On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:16:48AM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote: >> On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote: >>> >>> All of the ports that are in my install-set (including many multimedia >>> ports, x11, firefox, gnome, with most bloat variants set) have been >>> working with trunk/base using llvm-gcc-4.2 on SL and Lion for a while >>> now (trunk/base now chooses the compiler based on devtools version >>> rather than os version). I'm still holding on to a couple NDA-squimish >>> patches in leaf projects that I'll push after the actual release, but >>> it mostly works out of the box. >>> >>> If you are uncertain if filing your bug would violate your NDA, please >>> feel free to email me directly. >> >> Out of curiosity, Apple hasn't bumped to a newer gcc version? Does >> anybody know why? Did they stick with 4.2 for compatibility for >> libstdc++? >> >> Blair > > If Apple had access to clang in its current state at the start of Lion's > development, I'm sure we would have had clang as the default compiler but > alas they have no time machines. FYI, I rewrote fink to implement a > prefix-path-clang > that defaults fink to use clang for cc/gcc and clang++ for cxx/g++ as the > default > compilers for package builds under 10.7. So far we have had few problems with > using > clang as the default compiler under fink 10.7. The FreeBSD folks have been > building with clang for awhile now... > > http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang > http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang > http://rainbow-runner.nl/clang/patches/ > > and is another resource for clang specific patches. > Jack
Thanks Jack. How's the performance of clang versus gcc 4.2? Blair _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-dev
