> On Jan 28, 2015, at 10:17, René J.V. Bertin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wednesday January 28 2015 09:21:46 Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: > >> What variants did you select when installing llvm-3.4 and clang-3.4? If you >> installed with +assertions, that would certainly by why you see differences. > > The standard variant for llvm, to have binary packages, and apparently a > locally built clang to skip the arm_runtime. As far as I can tell that didn't > include assertions. > > I can no longer compare clang-3.4 and clang-mp-3.4, but I'll see if I find a > moment to repeat the comparison with clang-3.5 . How long approximately to > build clang-3.5 without that arm runtime, on a 2*2 core 2.7Ghz i7 MBP? > >>> So I've wondered: would it be possible to provide the missing components >>> from the current Apple toolchain through a port, so that one can build 3rd >>> party software against that toolchain? kdev-clang wouldn't be the only >>> "client" to benefit: one can also think of 3rd party debugger front ends, >>> etc. >> >> No. >> > Would it at least be possible to expand on that. In other words, why?
There are no shipped libraries for you to link against for the headers to be worthwhile.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
