On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Singleton <[email protected]> wrote:
> Nope. Sorry. But the "it works for me" argument just isn't going to work. > > I have tried both i386 (32 bit) and x86_64…and have the same issues > (eventually) and IT IS because of Clang. Prove it. File a bug, and I will fix it! I'm not saying that clang doesn't have issues, but so does gcc and llvm-gcc. If you really are seeing a real issue, then you need to provide specifics in a bug report. > I have never had so many problems > compiling with GCC, and then maintaining them through normal upgrades. I > use Macports for the convenience, and because its supported…but having to > rebuild from scratch over and over is becoming not-so-convenient. You shouldn't need to. If you do, it's a MacPorts bug, not a clang bug... and you should REPORT IT. > > If its not Clang as you suggest, and you think its a linking issue, then it > is a Macports problem. Yes, it may be, or it may be you mixing architecture choices or ports not supporting +universal correctly. > I don't mix my architectures. My macports.conf > either says build_arch i386 or it says build_arch x86_64. I don't add > anything to the command line other than the occasional variant. And you don't have anything that forces +universal (like installing wine on x86_64 for example?) > So how do x86_64 binaries/libraries get into an i386 Prefix and vice versa? If supported_archs restricts your build_arch. > Whenever I switch in an effort to troubleshoot a compile issue like this, I > *ALWAYS* clean/delete the entire folder, and reinstall Macports before > commencing. So if there is mixed arch linking going on, then Macports is > the problem. Possibly, but you need to file a bug report, not send a trolling email. > configure.compiler does not work on the command line as stated before. yes it does. Try it: sudo port -v install xorg-server configure.compiler=gcc-4.2 > I > have tried it several times, and Clang seems to be preferred and chosen > every time despite it. You're probably doing it wrong. See above. > I end up having to edit Portfiles to force the > compiler I want to use, and that gets to be to much work to maintain. It works fine here... > All I am asking for is to be able to choose my preferred compiler and not > be forced to use whatever Macport devs prefer. I mean, its not really open > if I have to use the compiler you tell me to, is it? You can. As I mentioned before, you need to use base trunk (not 2.0.4) and edit your macports.conf. > If Macports was a sponsored, non-free package management distribution, I > would understand having to use the developer chosen compiler. But its not, > so therefore we should have more flexibility in choosing things like what > compiler to use. Hey look at that, it's also OSS! You can change it however you want, but luckily everything you are complaining about is already supported in the release... _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macports-users
