On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 10:16 AM, "René J.V. Bertin" <[email protected]>wrote:
> > As said, if there is, this is unsupported. You should instead file bugs > > for the ports that break with clang so they can have clang or broken > > versions of it selectively blacklisted. > > Sure, but apart from that a user can have good reasons to use a compiler > (and/or options) of choice, no? Just one of them: I was amazed to see how > much better autovectorisation has become in gcc 4.7 - in one benchmark of > code taken from Perian, the 'scalar' version of a YUV conversion routine > all of a sudden executed as much faster as a handcoded SSE2 version as that > hand-coded version executes w.r.t. the scalar version using gcc-4.2 or MSVC > 2010 ... > Ask yourself this: is your use case so *very* important that users who are not as advanced as you --- which is to say, most of the MacPorts userbase --- should be inconvenienced or even be left with a broken system, so that your use case is slightly easier? (If you think the correct answer to that is "yes", I don't want to know about it. Just to be clear that as soon as you want to set the compiler to suit yourself, either you are a macports dev or you are not the target market for macports.) -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates [email protected] [email protected] unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
