UsingTheRightCompiler

[Jeremy Huddleston]

On Apr 17, 2012, at 1:16 PM, Jeff Singleton <gvibe06 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nope. Sorry.  But the "it works for me" argument just isn't going to work.
> 
> I have tried both i386 (32 bit) and x86_64…and have the same issues
> (eventually) and IT IS because of Clang.

Prove it.  File a bug, and I will fix it!  I'm not saying that clang doesn't have issues, but so does gcc and llvm-gcc.  If you really are seeing a real issue, then you need to provide specifics in a bug report.

> I have never had so many problems
> compiling with GCC, and then maintaining them through normal upgrades. I
> use Macports for the convenience, and because its supported…but having to
> rebuild from scratch over and over is becoming not-so-convenient.

You shouldn't need to.  If you do, it's a MacPorts bug, not a clang bug... and you should REPORT IT.
> 
> If its not Clang as you suggest, and you think its a linking issue, then it
> is a Macports problem.

Yes, it may be, or it may be you mixing architecture choices or ports not supporting +universal correctly.

>  I don't mix my architectures. My macports.conf
> either says build_arch i386 or it says build_arch x86_64.  I don't add
> anything to the command line other than the occasional variant.

And you don't have anything that forces +universal (like installing wine on x86_64 for example?)

> So how do x86_64 binaries/libraries get into an i386 Prefix and vice versa?

If supported_archs restricts your build_arch.

> Whenever I switch in an effort to troubleshoot a compile issue like this, I
> *ALWAYS* clean/delete the entire folder, and reinstall Macports before
> commencing.  So if there is mixed arch linking going on, then Macports is
> the problem.

Possibly, but you need to file a bug report, not send a trolling email.

> configure.compiler does not work on the command line as stated before.  

yes it does.  Try it:

sudo port -v install xorg-server configure.compiler=gcc-4.2

> I
> have tried it several times, and Clang seems to be preferred and chosen
> every time despite it.

You're probably doing it wrong.  See above.

> I end up having to edit Portfiles to force the
> compiler I want to use, and that gets to be to much work to maintain.

It works fine here... 

> All I am asking for is to be able to choose my preferred compiler and not
> be forced to use whatever Macport devs prefer.  I mean, its not really open
> if I have to use the compiler you tell me to, is it?

You can.  As I mentioned before, you need to use base trunk (not 2.0.4) and edit your macports.conf.

> If Macports was a sponsored, non-free package management distribution, I
> would understand having to use the developer chosen compiler. But its not,
> so therefore we should have more flexibility in choosing things like what
> compiler to use.

Hey look at that, it's also OSS!  You can change it however you want, but luckily everything you are complaining about is already supported in the release...