Somewhere in the tickets Marcus has this at least 1/2 done...

K

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandes...@macports.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:09, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>> 
>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningham wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about 
>>>>> C++14, C++17, and future versions?
>>>> 
>>>> By providing a current clang, like 5.0, all these are covered I believe. 
>>>> 
>>>> The PG is really misnamed....should be "modern compiler" PG or similar.
>>> 
>>> Well, for example, Apple clang < 602 doesn't understand -std=c++14, but the 
>>> portgroup only blacklists clang < 500. So for C++14 ports like textmate2 
>>> I've been adding the clang < 602 blacklist in addition to including the 
>>> portgroup. But the more new C++ standards get introduced, the more 
>>> complicated this will get.
>> 
>> Please not more portgroups, tho.
> 
> Agreed. That was the point I want to raise. And if we want a single portgroup 
> that handles specifying different language standards, it makes sense to 
> rename it now, before we go changing all the cxx11 1.0 ports, so that we 
> don't have to change those ports again a second time.
> 
> 
>> How about we just move up that clang floor as time goes by?
> 
> I would not be in favor of that, because it would result in users 
> unnecessarily being forced to install newer compilers for ports that don't 
> need them.
> 
> I would be in favor of a new option in which the port author can specify the 
> language standard, and the portgroup takes care of the details. Actually 
> there should probably be an option for each language: maybe configure.cc_std 
> and configure.cxx_std.
> 

Reply via email to