Thanks for the info, Mojca. I understand the situation now, though I would
certainly be in favor of handling this more clearly in base as you
outlined. That worked. (inevitably, it turns out clang-3.4 which was taken
instead has its own different problem on that code...)
David
On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Mojca Miklavec <mo...@macports.org> wrote:
> On 9 June 2016 at 19:07, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> >
> > There is probably not much interest in this issue and there is an easy
> > workaround, but I would also kind of agree that blacklisting "*gcc*"
> > should probably also blacklist clang/llvm-gcc on 10.6.
>
> Once again me ...
>
> This is probably the relevant part of the source
> (if {[string match $pattern $compiler]}):
>
>
> # internal function to determine the default compiler
> proc portconfigure::configure_get_default_compiler {} {
> if {[option compiler.whitelist] ne ""} {
> set search_list [option compiler.whitelist]
> } else {
> set search_list [option compiler.fallback]
> }
> foreach compiler $search_list {
> set allowed yes
> foreach pattern [option compiler.blacklist] {
> if {[string match $pattern $compiler]} {
> set allowed no
> break
> }
> }
>
> Should we or should we not introduce more complexity to blacklist
> "clang" with xcode < 4 (= whenever clang++ doesn't exist) when "gcc"
> is blacklisted?
>
> Mojca
>
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
