On Dec 27, 2013, at 8:56 AM, Landon Fuller <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 22, 2013, at 3:11 , Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > >> This will unnecessarily make users of Xcode < 5 install the llvm-gcc42 port, >> when they have a perfectly good version of llvm-gcc42 provided by Xcode. >> Rather than this, you should use compiler.blacklist. For example, if no >> clang compiler will work, blacklist all of them with: >> >> compiler.blacklist *clang* > > I think I'd need 'compiler.whitelist macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 llvm-gcc-4.2' to > make sure I always get a consistent compiler? There's an extensive test suite > I ran with a JVM built against llvm-gcc4.2, and I hesitate to throw any > variables into the mix. Strictly speaking, someone could set "default_compilers" in their macports.conf and muck up the fallback lists. So if you want to be 100% sure that you get LLVM-GCC, you'll have to use a whitelist. You'd probably want "compiler.whitelist llvm-gcc-4.2 macports-llvm-gcc-4.2", to allow Xcode to satisfy the selection. Otherwise the LLVM-GCC port will always be installed automatically. >> MacPorts will pick the next-best compiler, which will be llvm-gcc42, either >> the version provided by Xcode or the one provided by MacPorts, depending on >> what’s available. You can then use the variables ${configure.cc}, >> ${configure.cxx}, etc. where you need them. > > Will this actually work with llvm-gcc? Apple is still shipping 'gcc' and > 'llvm-gcc' binaries/symlinks, but they're pointed at clang; won't > find_developer_tool still pick them up? When configure.compiler is "llvm-gcc-4.2", portconfigure::configure_get_compiler looks specifically for "llvm-{gcc,g++,cpp}-4.2". I don't think Xcode 5 installs the versioned executables; I don't have them on my Mavericks system, at least. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
