Christopher Jones wrote:
> provides a rock solid gcc build that works in all cases without any nasty
> nuances (such as the library linkage changes you recently posted).
I have now been able to build and run KDevelop 5.1.1, digiKam 5.5.0 and
port:boost with my patched G++
Boost needs some patc
> On May 13, 2017, at 2:58 PM, René J. V. Bertin wrote:
>
> Christopher Jones wrote:
>> such that I am not really sure
>> its warranted to expend a lot of effort to keep gcc alive on OSX, when
>
> There appear to be quite a few ports that use/expect gcc, though. For some
> that
> is just to g
Christopher Jones wrote:
> My reading is there is, on average across the board, there is no clear
> advantage/disadvantage to either gcc or clang
That's exactly what I'm saying too. However, that's all on Linux where clang
may
not perform optimally (because using libstdc++) and where GCC can us
> Either way, benchmarks like these are rarely representative of real-world
> performance in *[y]our* workloads. My own experience over the years has been
> that GCC gives measurably better performance and that in cases where every
> last
> drop doesn't count you were better off using clang be
To answer my own question, partly: binutils doesn't install an assembler on
Mac.
Bummer, so it cannot provide the answer to the intrinsic instructions issue...
I was a bit surprised to find out that the CCTools as is still based on GNU as,
but an *old* version.
R.
Chris Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>> GCC vs. clang comparisons on sites like Phoronix suggest that GCC still has
>> the upper hand compared even to clang 4.0 in computation-intensive tasks so
>> it would make a lot of sense to get it to support the full instruction set.
>
>
> Please provide links to s
