Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 12:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: > >> Ah, clever. I see what you mean, but yeah, that would require more >> extensive use of muniversal which is more of a hack in my mind than a proper >> solution. =/ > > You're right. The proper solution would be to

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:43 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: And what should the default value be? C++11? C11? I think we should probably move toward portgroups where the default is not to do anything, and some directive has to be used to activate the portgroup's behavior. Indeed. I often wish I

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 30.04.2015 03:56 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: That was going to be my suggestion, to avoid a proliferation of portgroups that all do something similar. For example, right now I'm dealing with the fact that gpsd 3.14 requires C11 (not C++11),

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 30, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 30.04.2015 03:56 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 29, 2015, at 1:37 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: That was going to be my suggestion, to avoid a proliferation of portgroups that all do something similar. For example, right now I'm dealing

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 29, 2015, at 12:12 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: Do we want a general cxx PortGroup with options for C++11, C++14, C++... or a new PortGroup for every standard? Probably the former? That was going to be my suggestion, to avoid a proliferation of portgroups that all do something similar.

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling and it would be very handy to allow a keyword like compiler.c++11 or compiler.something c++11 to replace all of the

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 28, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling and it would be very handy to allow a keyword like

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 29.04.2015 06:55 AM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 28, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling and it would be

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia jerem...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: Yes, that would be adding a new dependency on libgcc and FSF GCC for all C++ ports. But so does using libc++ on 10.6. Implicitly at least.

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote: On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia jerem...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: Yes, that would be adding a new dependency on libgcc and FSF

GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 07:39 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote: On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia jerem...@apple.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: [...] For

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver back to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relying even more

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

Hi, - On 22 Apr, 2015, at 20:23, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: First, a compiler is a somewhat delicate matter and I do not think I've got experience to get it right. I don't want to completely break (or break in subtle ways) FSF GCC on OS X. Feel free to ask me if you stumble

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver back to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relying even more on muniversal. Personally, I do not wish to do so, for

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:23 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: You're right. The proper solution would be to add the old driver-driver back to FSF GCC and get it upstreamed, instead of relying even more on muniversal. Personally, I do not wish to do so, for multiple reasons. Too bad Apple didn't

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On 22.04.2015 08:47 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 1:45 PM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 22.04.2015 08:41 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: Too bad Apple didn't contribute the code back to FSF. Or maybe they did and they didn't accept it for some reason? I don't know. But this is the kind of

Re: GCC driver-driver [was: Re: standard way to require c++11?]

On Apr 22, 2015, at 11:23, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: On 22.04.2015 07:39 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: On Apr 22, 2015, at 10:30, Lawrence Velázquez lar...@macports.org wrote: On Apr 21, 2015, at 5:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia jerem...@apple.com wrote: On

Re: standard way to require c++11?

I don't know any port that fails to build with libstdc++ but is happy with libc++ offhand. llvm-3.7 and webkit-gtk are two such ports that I can point to off the top of my head. By libstdc++ I am of course referring to the *system* libstdc++. I apologize if that was not clear. I was

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 20, 2015, at 23:51, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: I don't know any port that fails to build with libstdc++ but is happy with libc++ offhand. llvm-3.7 and webkit-gtk are two such ports that I can point to off the top of my head. By libstdc++ I am of course referring to

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 15, 2015, at 3:45 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: (b) I've been suggesting for a long time already that we should set up three new buildbots to build packages against libc++ on 10.6-10.8. The lack of a buildbot is a showstopper for me, preventing me from globally switching to libc++ (on an

Re: standard way to require c++11?

[This message is merging Mojca's and Jeremy's answers] On 14.04.2015 09:11 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: Could something like that be added

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 10:02 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: Yes, I actually have libc++ on all of my SL+ machines except a couple VMs I keep around for testing the default configuration. IMO, it seems far easier to live on libc++ on SL than

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 14.04.2015 10:02 AM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote: Yes, I actually have libc++ on all of my SL+ machines except a couple VMs I keep around for testing the default configuration. IMO, it seems far easier to live on libc++ on SL than libstdc++ because so many ports these days require

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling and it would be very handy to allow a

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist PortGroup? I believe that pure C++11 projects need consistent handling and

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Apr 14, 2015, at 00:11, Mojca Miklavec mo...@macports.org wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:18 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: On 14.04.2015 07:44 AM, Mojca Miklavec wrote: On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mihai Moldovan wrote: Could something like that be added to the compiler_blacklist

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:23 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: The main problem is that Apple's own C++ stuff is based on either a pre-C++11 libstdc++ or a C++11 libc++. You could probably build an official GPL3-d libstdc++ with C++11 support and it would probably even work (that If

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tuesday April 14 2015 10:32:32 Brandon Allbery wrote: I was not talking about actually replacing the system libstdc++; you get what you deserve if you do that. I would expect something linking against :) an alternative libstdc++ to have some chance to work, though. I've used

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tuesday April 14 2015 10:01:05 Brandon Allbery wrote: Why would they? They don't use it and you can get it from the gcc project easily enough. Heh, no, it's us users who'd be using it (with all that implies O:-) ) The main problem is that Apple's own C++ stuff is based on either a pre-C++11

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 14.04.2015 04:01 PM, Brandon Allbery wrote: The main problem is that Apple's own C++ stuff is based on either a pre-C++11 libstdc++ or a C++11 libc++. You could probably build an official GPL3-d libstdc++ with C++11 support and it would probably even work (that being one of the points of

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tuesday April 14 2015 08:56:48 Brandon Allbery wrote: would you not use libstdc++, if it works *and* can be used -- together with GCC -- to compile C++11 code? Last I checked, it doesn't work; Apple does not and will not ship a libstdc++ that is C++11-compatible, because all such are GPL3.

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:54 AM, René J.V. rjvber...@gmail.com wrote: It's a pity they don't even provide the source code for such a libstdc++ version Why would they? They don't use it and you can get it from the gcc project easily enough. The main problem is that Apple's own C++ stuff is

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: This by itself is not pulling in anything yet. What I wanted to express is that I assume using libstdc++ on = 10.9 an error and using libc++ on = 10.8 an error. 10.7 supports libc++. Why would you not use libstdc++,

Re: standard way to require c++11?

As a reply to what we discussed on IRC today, here's the relevant changes for the C++11 on steroids part of one of my ports (audacious-core): Revision: 135031 https://trac.macports.org/changeset/135031 Author: ionic at macports.org Date: 2015-04-13 09:24:21 -0700 (Mon, 13 Apr

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:54 AM, Mihai Moldovan io...@macports.org wrote: As a reply to what we discussed on IRC today, here's the relevant changes for the C++11 on steroids part of one of my ports (audacious-core): /.../ +# A compiler supporting C++11 is required to build audacious and its

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 19/03/15 18:44, Michael Dickens wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 02:06 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Michael Dickens michae...@macports.org wrote: Exactly. If we key off of {${configure.cxx_stdlib} eq libstdc++}, then I think this can be made to work; er, mostly.

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015, at 04:38 AM, Chris Jones wrote: Using Macports gcc you will still have the problem of mixing different C++ runtimes, the macports stdlibc++ used by the gcc ports, and the system one. They are not the same and if you try use at the same time ports built with the normal

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On 19/03/15 17:54, René J.V. Bertin wrote: On Thursday March 19 2015 17:01:02 Chris Jones wrote: Using gcc is a bad idea, this can lead to C++ runtime issues. On newer OS X versions where libc++ is the default (or only) C++ runtime. No, its problematic on all OSX releases. Which means

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 01:54 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: On Thursday March 19 2015 17:01:02 Chris Jones wrote: Using gcc is a bad idea, this can lead to C++ runtime issues. On newer OS X versions where libc++ is the default (or only) C++ runtime. Exactly. If we key off of

Re: standard way to require c++11?

So, here's what I have thus far: {{{ if {${configure.cxx_stdlib} eq libstdc++} { # *clang* when using libstdc++ do not seem to support C++11; # C++11 support seems to need GCC 4.7+ when using libstdc++; # could use C++0x support on GCC4.[56], but just ignore it since # there are

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Thursday March 19 2015 14:06:21 Lawrence Velázquez wrote: On newer OS X versions where libc++ is the default (or only) C++ runtime. Exactly. If we key off of {${configure.cxx_stdlib} eq libstdc++}, then I think this can be made to work; er, mostly. I believe this is only safe if you're

Re: standard way to require c++11?

Hi, The bottom line is there is no clean way of supporting C++11 on 10.8 or older. Its can only be done on a best try basis. Using gcc is a bad idea, this can lead to C++ runtime issues. In the root6 port we use # Force a compatible compiler compiler.blacklist-append *gcc* {clang 500}

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Thursday March 19 2015 17:01:02 Chris Jones wrote: Using gcc is a bad idea, this can lead to C++ runtime issues. On newer OS X versions where libc++ is the default (or only) C++ runtime. Which means newer systems use the compatible system clang compiler, and older system use the macports

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Michael Dickens michae...@macports.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 01:54 PM, René J.V. Bertin wrote: On Thursday March 19 2015 17:01:02 Chris Jones wrote: Using gcc is a bad idea, this can lead to C++ runtime issues. On newer OS X versions where libc++ is

Re: standard way to require c++11?

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015, at 02:06 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote: On Mar 19, 2015, at 1:56 PM, Michael Dickens michae...@macports.org wrote: Exactly. If we key off of {${configure.cxx_stdlib} eq libstdc++}, then I think this can be made to work; er, mostly. I believe this is only safe if