My bad for thinking Mojca wanted support for libstdc++. Somehow I really
misinterpreted the original postings. Happens sometimes. - MLD
On Mon, Jan 25, 2016, at 12:11 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> "libstdc++" means /usr/lib/libstdc++.6.dylib, and it doesn't support
> C++11, so it is not
On 25 January 2016 at 20:17, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:15 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>
>> What benefit does "cxx.require_global_libc++ no" have over the current
>> approach of just doing:
>>
>>configure.cxx_stdlib libc++
>>depends_lib-append port:libcxx
>
> Or
On 25 January 2016 at 18:55, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 09:29, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> (Even more than that I would really like to see the buildbots with
>> libc++ as their default stdlib being set up.)
>
> As far as I know nothing has changed on this front. I'm totally willing
On 2016-01-25 18:55, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 09:29, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>>
>> (Even more than that I would really like to see the buildbots with
>> libc++ as their default stdlib being set up.)
>
> As far as I know nothing has changed on this front. I'm totally
> willing to
On Jan 24, 2016, at 11:15 PM, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
> What benefit does "cxx.require_global_libc++ no" have over the current
> approach of just doing:
>
>configure.cxx_stdlib libc++
>depends_lib-append port:libcxx
Or I was going to suggest:
PortGroupcxx11 1.0
We've had this discuss before, how to do C++11 for libstdc++ and libc++.
The cxx11 PortGroup implements C++11 compliance for libc++ only. It
errors out when using libstdc++.
What Mojca is asking is whether we can add an implementation for when
using libstdc++, and I am on board with agreeing on
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 08:04, Michael Dickens wrote:
>
> We've had this discuss before, how to do C++11 for libstdc++ and libc++.
>
> The cxx11 PortGroup implements C++11 compliance for libc++ only. It
> errors out when using libstdc++.
>
> What Mojca is asking is
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 09:29, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> (Even more than that I would really like to see the buildbots with
> libc++ as their default stdlib being set up.)
As far as I know nothing has changed on this front. I'm totally willing to set
up libc++ build slaves for 10.6, 10.7 and
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 09:29, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> On 25 January 2016 at 18:11, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 08:04, Michael Dickens wrote:
>>>
>>> We've had this discuss before, how to do C++11 for libstdc++ and libc++.
>>>
>>> The cxx11
On 25 January 2016 at 18:11, Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 08:04, Michael Dickens wrote:
>>
>> We've had this discuss before, how to do C++11 for libstdc++ and libc++.
>>
>> The cxx11 PortGroup implements C++11 compliance for libc++ only. It
>> errors out when using
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 14:08, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to implement a way to use the cxx11 PortGroup
> without having to use libc++ as default stdlib? Maybe with an
> additional configuration like:
>PortGroup cxx11 1.0
>
2016-01-23 23:08 GMT+01:00 Mojca Miklavec :
> Examples of such ports would be root6, newer versions of clang etc.
Another example is gringo: in my local copy of the Portfile on 10.6 I
removed the cxx11 PortGroup and added a suitable configure.compiler
line.
This feature would
Hi,
Would it be possible to implement a way to use the cxx11 PortGroup
without having to use libc++ as default stdlib? Maybe with an
additional configuration like:
PortGroup cxx11 1.0
cxx.require_global_libc++ no
(but with a better keyword of course).
What I have in mind are ports that
13 matches
Mail list logo