[114733] users/landonf/openjdk7/dports/java/openjdk6/Portfile

[Ryan Schmidt]

On Dec 27, 2013, at 07:56, Landon Fuller wrote:

>> This will unnecessarily make users of Xcode < 5 install the llvm-gcc42 port, when they have a perfectly good version of llvm-gcc42 provided by Xcode. Rather than this, you should use compiler.blacklist. For example, if no clang compiler will work, blacklist all of them with:
>> 
>> compiler.blacklist *clang*
> 
> I think I'd need 'compiler.whitelist macports-llvm-gcc-4.2 llvm-gcc-4.2' to make sure I always get a consistent compiler? There's an extensive test suite I ran with a JVM built against llvm-gcc4.2, and I hesitate to throw any variables into the mix.

If you have reason to believe that *only* llvm-gcc — not clang, not gcc — will work, then ok, whitelist only llvm-gcc. That would be unusual, but maybe openjdk is unusual in its compiler needs; I don’t know.


>> MacPorts will pick the next-best compiler, which will be llvm-gcc42, either the version provided by Xcode or the one provided by MacPorts, depending on what’s available. You can then use the variables ${configure.cc}, ${configure.cxx}, etc. where you need them.
> 
> Will this actually work with llvm-gcc?

Yes, it will work with all compiler names that MacPorts recognizes. See portconfigure.tcl.

> Apple is still shipping 'gcc' and 'llvm-gcc' binaries/symlinks, but they're pointed at clang; won't find_developer_tool still pick them up?
> 
> 	landonf at lambda:~> llvm-gcc -v
> 	Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn)
> 
> 	landonf at lambda:~> llvm-gcc --help   
> 	OVERVIEW: clang LLVM compiler
> 	[snip]
> 
> 	landonf at lambda:~> gcc -v
> 	Configured with: --prefix=/Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/usr --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.2.1
> 	Apple LLVM version 5.0 (clang-500.2.79) (based on LLVM 3.3svn)
> 
> 	landonf at lambda:~> gcc --help
> 	OVERVIEW: clang LLVM compiler
> 	[snip]
> 
> Shipping an incompatible compiler as 'gcc' and 'llvm-gcc' was an absolutely ridiculous decision on the part of Apple's developer tools team, but they didn't ask me.

I am not Apple, but clang *is* more or less compatible with most of what gcc does. And since Apple decided to no longer ship gcc or llvm-gcc but only clang, the two choices were: make “gcc" a symlink to clang, or provide no "gcc" at all. They chose the former, and I think it was an ok choice; had they chosen the latter, I can imagine a *lot* of software not being able to build out of the box, since a lot of software assumes the compiler is “gcc”.