On Sat, Dec 5, 2020 at 1:25 PM Ken Cunningham < [email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 5, 2020, at 11:21 AM, Eric Borisch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > We could: > > > > * leave the current patch applied to clang-* (to teach clang where to > get the library if it is installed) > > * make clang-* no longer depend upon libomp > > * Add a post-install note of "to enable OpenMP support, install libomp" > > * Have libomp depends_build upon the latest clang on the platform (is > there an automagic way to do this?) > > > > For most (standard install; many pre-compiled binaries) users, libomp > would be installed via pre-built packages, and wouldn't have to pull down > clang to build it. > > > > This would also avoid having multiple libomp instances on the system, > which seems like a "good thing". > > > > How does that sound? I like having 'sudo port install clang-X' yield a > fully featured (-fopenmp just works) compiler, but a reminder note and > simple "sudo port install libomp" isn't all bad... > > > > - Eric > > From a practical point of view great. > > But requiring the manual step to get libomp will never be acceptable to > MacPorts, as it is buildbot-unfriendly and breaks the reproducible builds > model. > > So we just (I think…) have to have the Portfile addition > > compiler.omp-required 4.5 > > (or whatever the command is) also mandate a lilb dep on "port:libomp”. > > Sounds trivial, and gets it out of the clang/llvm tree. > > > Ken I think we’re envisioning the same thing; ports that want OpenMP support would depends_lib on libomp through some path. The post-install note would be there to inform users who are explicitly installing clang-X for their own use, and want it to support OpenMP. (Since we are suggesting removing the clang -> libomp dep.) > - Eric
