[MacPorts] #53194: clang: have -stdlib=libstdc++ refer to MacPorts libstdc++

[MacPorts]

#53194: clang: have -stdlib=libstdc++ refer to MacPorts libstdc++
----------------------------------+------------------------
  Reporter:  MarcusCalhoun-Lopez  |      Owner:  jeremyhu@…
      Type:  enhancement          |     Status:  new
  Priority:  Normal               |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports                |    Version:
Resolution:                       |   Keywords:  haspatch
      Port:  clang-3.9            |
----------------------------------+------------------------

Comment (by MarcusCalhoun-Lopez):

 Replying to [comment:13 jeremyhu]:
 > What do you mean by "If this patch is not to be accepted"?
 I simply meant that if the maintainers of clang do not want to maintain
 this particular patch, creating a
 [https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/53194/Portfile.3.diff subport
 compiler] that was my responsibility would also work.[[BR]]
 I do not want to presume to create more work for others.

 > I previously said, "Approach #2 looks fine. Go ahead and push it to
 llvm-devel but don't make the variant default.
 As you noted, that happened
 [https://trac.macports.org/changeset/c68d69b898fece7fea96b61ae0dd33650f628289
 /macports-ports a couple of weeks ago].[[BR]]
 Through inertia, it was also copied into [https://github.com/macports
 /macports-ports/commit/49bd2ee7c1e54f290cb6fe07a084de8a2abddb66#diff-
 02b793eb6bd2c01883f69d23e68cc3c8 clang-4.9].

 > Let's solicit feedback from macports-dev, and if folks find it useful,
 we should bring it back into llvm-3.9 as well."
 > If it turns out to not be too offensive to folks, we can flip it to
 being default.  We won't know that until after you push the change and let
 it brew.
 As I mentioned [https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53194#comment:11
 earlier], there was a [https://lists.macports.org/pipermail/macports-
 dev/2017-January/thread.html#35173 discussion] about the whole proposal a
 couple of weeks ago.

 Replying to [comment:14 jeremyhu]:
 > Oh, it's actually already in.  I missed that.  So why is this ticket
 still open?
 Unfortunately, for my purposes (#53330), the variant must be default
 ([https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/53194/Portfile.diff
 Portfile1.diff], or
 [https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/53194/Portfile.2.diff
 Portfile.2.diff]) or a subport must be created
 ([https://trac.macports.org/attachment/ticket/53194/Portfile.3.diff
 Portfile.3.diff]).[[BR]]
 As llvm is not openmaintainer, I have been hesitant to make changes of
 this magnitude without explicit permission.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/53194#comment:15>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for macOS