Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 08:56:12 +0200 From: Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Baptiste Daroussin <bapt@FreeBSD.org>, sbruno@FreeBSD.org, Ian Lepore <ian@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Total confusion over toolchain/xdev behavior Message-ID: <67272C53-1908-454A-8E74-14D9A2EA0828@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <B94CB4F3-FA56-4B17-A4DD-A6F28F521A9C@bsdimp.com> References: <1404688077.1059.115.camel@bruno> <1404766292.65432.43.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <20B72004-1499-4F99-A7C7-13173C50C7C6@bsdimp.com> <20140707235237.GG97203@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> <DB29AF3B-C761-4112-A4F6-6CF20159C2E1@bsdimp.com> <B94CB4F3-FA56-4B17-A4DD-A6F28F521A9C@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 08 Jul 2014, at 03:56, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > On Jul 7, 2014, at 7:29 PM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: >> >> About the rest… Yea, you may be right…. MK_GNUCXX is an odd duck, and that’s >> likely the problem that should be fixed in a different way. It is really an internal >> variable that should be set based on the actual compiler type (possibly with an >> override for the odd-duck pair of clang and libstdc++ which may not be worth >> supporting). It is telling us we’re doing something horribly wrong and we should listen >> to that rather than add another compiler-related kludge to the build system. I’ll work >> on that bit. > > Perhaps > http://people.freesbd.org/~imp/patch-queue/86gnucxx > might be the best way to cope… > > Comments? This would make it impossible to build libstdc++ with clang, and why remove MK_GNUCXX at all[1]? Maybe the option should be renamed to MK_LIBSTDCXX or MK_LIBSTDCPLUSPLUS, since that is basically what it does: enable or disable building libstdc++ and its dependent components. If the compiler is base gcc, you *must* build libstdc++, since it cannot build libc++. But if you are using e.g. gcc 4.8 as an external toolchain, you could just as easily disable libstdc++, and build libc++ instead. I think both should be a user-selectable option. -Dimitry [1]: That is, unless somebody is planning on removing libstdc++ altogether... but then g++ will also have to go. ;) [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlO7lhAACgkQsF6jCi4glqPEXACgw/jzs5IZTiZ6qa4Ikc8ozTEN lkwAoMWS5UJShWpYmoICfewrfBfF4Xkl =qqwi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?67272C53-1908-454A-8E74-14D9A2EA0828>