what's the plan for mac os x lion

[Blair Zajac]

On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Jack Howarth wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 11:16:48AM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On Jul 4, 2011, at 11:14 AM, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
>>> 
>>> All of the ports that are in my install-set (including many multimedia 
>>> ports, x11, firefox, gnome, with most bloat variants set) have been 
>>> working with trunk/base using llvm-gcc-4.2 on SL and Lion for a while 
>>> now (trunk/base now chooses the compiler based on devtools version 
>>> rather than os version).  I'm still holding on to a couple NDA-squimish 
>>> patches in leaf projects that I'll push after the actual release, but 
>>> it mostly works out of the box.
>>> 
>>> If you are uncertain if filing your bug would violate your NDA, please 
>>> feel free to email me directly.
>> 
>> Out of curiosity, Apple hasn't bumped to a newer gcc version?  Does  
>> anybody know why?  Did they stick with 4.2 for compatibility for  
>> libstdc++?
>> 
>> Blair
> 
>   If Apple had access to clang in its current state at the start of Lion's
> development, I'm sure we would have had clang as the default compiler but
> alas they have no time machines. FYI, I rewrote fink to implement a prefix-path-clang
> that defaults fink to use clang for cc/gcc and clang++ for cxx/g++ as the default
> compilers for package builds under 10.7. So far we have had few problems with using
> clang as the default compiler under fink 10.7. The FreeBSD folks have been
> building with clang for awhile now...
> 
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/BuildingFreeBSDWithClang
> http://wiki.freebsd.org/PortsAndClang
> http://rainbow-runner.nl/clang/patches/
> 
> and is another resource for clang specific patches.
>              Jack

Thanks Jack.

How's the performance of clang versus gcc 4.2?

Blair