> On Oct 6, 2016, at 10:48 AM, Mojca Miklavec <mo...@macports.org> wrote: > > On 6 October 2016 at 16:23, René J.V. Bertin wrote: >> >> Ken: apologies for not having thought of this, but myself when I was still >> running 10.6 I've had sufficient success with building C++11 code using a >> (then) recent gcc port. It's possible that things have evolved so much >> nowadays that even that may not cut it anymore. > > This would probably mostly work fine if *all* ports were built with > g++ (= against the same version of mp-provided stdlibc++). I can > easily imagine problems when gcc is switched from, say, version 5 to > version 6, but let's ignore that for a moment. > > The problem is that MacPorts cannot easily support a zillion of > different configurations and this is certainly an unsupported one. > > Some of the ports that require C++11 currently blacklist all the gcc > compilers and enforce libc++. Not because gcc would not be able to > build it, but to ensure at least some consistency. So if you want to > use this configuration, you need quite a bit of editing of different > ports, say goodbye to binary packages, expect other random problems. > > I'm not saying that this cannot work. Just that it calls for random > headaches that one has to willingly accept and be able to fix on > him/her own. (Or maintain a fork of MP with a monstrous amount of > work.)
Not to mention the fact that literally every single C++ port would have to declare a library dependency on libgcc. vq _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
