[MacPorts] #65355: lldb-10: builds failing for ARM: fix, or set known_fail

[MacPorts]

#65355: lldb-10: builds failing for ARM: fix, or set known_fail
----------------------+----------------------
  Reporter:  mascguy  |      Owner:  mascguy
      Type:  defect   |     Status:  assigned
  Priority:  Normal   |  Milestone:
 Component:  ports    |    Version:  2.7.2
Resolution:           |   Keywords:  arm
      Port:  lldb-10  |
----------------------+----------------------
Description changed by mascguy:

Old description:

> Builds currently failing for Big Sur and Monterey ARM, with the
> following:
>
> llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3507:55:
> error: cannot increment value of type 'const
> std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long
> long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long
> long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>'
>                                  pos != range.second; ++pos) {
>                                                       ^ ~~~
> llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3552:55:
> error: cannot increment value of type 'const
> std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long
> long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long
> long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>'
>                                  pos != range.second; ++pos) {
>                                                       ^ ~~~
> }}}
>
> Depending on the evolution of LLVM/LLDB 10 -> 11, we may be able to apply
> an upstream patch/fix. Though it's a bit odd that this compiles fine for
> Big Sur and Monterey x86_64.
>
> Is there some type of stdlib difference between the two architectures...?

New description:

 Builds currently failing for Big Sur and Monterey ARM, with the following:

 {{{
 llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3507:55:
 error: cannot increment value of type 'const
 std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long
 long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long
 long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>'
                                  pos != range.second; ++pos) {
                                                       ^ ~~~
 llvm-10.0.1.src/tools/lldb/source/Plugins/ObjectFile/Mach-O/ObjectFileMachO.cpp:3552:55:
 error: cannot increment value of type 'const
 std::__map_iterator<std::__tree_iterator<std::__value_type<unsigned long
 long, unsigned int>, std::__tree_node<std::__value_type<unsigned long
 long, unsigned int>, void *> *, long>>'
                                  pos != range.second; ++pos) {
                                                       ^ ~~~
 }}}

 Depending on the evolution of LLVM/LLDB 10 -> 11, we may be able to apply
 an upstream patch/fix. Though it's a bit odd that this compiles fine for
 Big Sur and Monterey x86_64.

 Is there some type of stdlib difference between the two architectures...?

--

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/65355#comment:1>
MacPorts <https://www.macports.org/>
Ports system for macOS