Christopher Jones wrote: > My reading is there is, on average across the board, there is no clear > advantage/disadvantage to either gcc or clang
That's exactly what I'm saying too. However, that's all on Linux where clang may not perform optimally (because using libstdc++) and where GCC can use an up-to- date gas. And it's with synthetic benchmarks. > such that I am not really sure > its warranted to expend a lot of effort to keep gcc alive on OSX, when There appear to be quite a few ports that use/expect gcc, though. For some that is just to get a Fortran compiler, but if memory serves me well you cannot just build/install gfortran with gcc and g++. Even without official maintainer the ports are kept up-to-date, and I'd argue that we could just as well add an option to make the C and C++ compilers a viable alternative. As a variant, at least for the time being. > not accept any patches into MacPorts for this unless they a) do not require > significant patching of the gcc builds that upstream does not accept and The patch is significant in its implications, not quite in its implementation or even the underlying principle. Libc++ and libstdc++ are independent implementations of the same standard that just happen not to be exchangeable without recompiling. Patching GCC so that it links to the other isn't rocket science. Getting it to use the corresponding headerfiles can actually be done without patching at all; I'm currently doing it only to ensure that the correct headers are found when GCC is being built itself. Now, is upstream likely to accept it? That's a whole different question, for all I know they might have an agenda against libc++ or the Mac platform like Apple have against GPL-3 (and which is the main reason we have clang and not GCC any more). The patch is a typical distribution patch and will thus come across a bit of a hack in upstream eyes. An upstreamable version would need a configure option to activate it and one to specify the location of clang's header files, and would presumably suppose that the libc++ version is recent enough (or else avoid using certain functions). I've requested to register for a GCC bugzilla account to see what they think and what ideas they have to improve my implementation but haven't heard back yet. > b) > provides a rock solid gcc build that works in all cases without any nasty > nuances (such as the library linkage changes you recently posted). If you can Remind me what you mean with that? I've been building a few more ports _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
