Hi, > On 16 Mar 2014, at 10:34 pm, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Sunday March 16 2014 19:44:14 Christopher Jones wrote: >> >>> On 16 Mar 2014, at 7:14pm, René J.V. Bertin <rjvber...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> Its different because Apple, because of the above GPL3+ issue, will not >> provide either gcc release that uses libc++, or a clang release that uses >> libstdc++. Linux, being GPL3+ friendly is happy to do the work, so on recent >> Linux systems you get up to date clang and gcc releases that a) both support >> c++11 and b) can be intermixed, as both use the same c++ runtime. > > But both will use libstdc++ - because a Linux version of GCC that supports > clang's c++11 could surely be built on OS X too?
In theory yes. In practise, it will will require someone to step up to the mark to provide it. And that someone will not be anyone associated to Apple in any way, as they cannot touch anything GPL3. Honestly, i don't really see the point. Better to just support clang (and provide bug reports to fix issues such as the one to hand.) > >> The standard (correctly) has absolutely nothing to do with specific >> implementations of that standard. The ‘issue’ is Apple will not touch >> anything released under GPL3+, and the most recent c++11 supporting version >> of libstdc++ is released under this. As such you will never get it on OSX, >> and thus the fact that in order to support c++11 on OSX you must use libc++. > > Not just C++11 if I understood correctly, but every dialect and flavour of > C++. I knew there was a reason I hung on to pure C for so long ^^ > > R. > > _______________________________________________ > macports-users mailing list > macports-users@lists.macosforge.org > https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users _______________________________________________ macports-users mailing list macports-users@lists.macosforge.org https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
