[MacPorts] #40266: wine, wine-devel: blacklist clang compilers producing buggy binaries
MacPorts
noreply at macports.org
Wed Aug 28 11:19:57 PDT 2013
#40266: wine, wine-devel: blacklist clang compilers producing buggy binaries
---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
Reporter: ionic@… | Owner: macports-
Type: defect | tickets@…
Priority: Normal | Status: new
Component: ports | Milestone:
Resolution: | Version: 2.2.0
Port: wine wine-devel wine-crossover | Keywords: haspatch
---------------------------------------------+-----------------------------
Comment (by ionic@…):
Replying to [comment:11 jeremyhu@…]:
> {{{
> # Reorder gcc-4.2 to the back
> compiler.fallback-delete gcc-4.2 apple-gcc-4.2
> compiler.blacklist-append gcc-4.2 apple-gcc-4.2
> }}}
compiler.blacklist-append? Did you mean compiler.fallback-append? :)
[[BR]]
That's a very nice idea, thanks!
>Also, the default compiler.fallback actually does choose Apple's
recommended compiler as the first option based on Xcode version (although
I think Apple may have been pushing for clang adoption in Xcode 4.0 and
4.1, but we started using it with 4.2)
IIRC, Xcode 4.0 had llvm-gcc-4.2 as the default compiler set, same thing
for 4.1. 4.2 then switched to clang as the default compiler. I guess the
short llvm-gcc phase was really more for testing whether LLVM would behave
well with optimized code or a lot of developers are reporting bugs.
>That being said, I think you may be right regarding promoting macports-
clang-3.3 over macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 in the next version of base, but I
want to audit all the ports blacklists first and update any "clang"
options to be versioned (if necessary) first or changed to "*clang*" if
they should skip 3.3 as well. Once that's done, we can reorder those.
Sounds reasonable. I'm all for it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/40266#comment:13>
MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for OS X
More information about the macports-tickets
mailing list