Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 19:36:48 +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: <A7CE5DAD-C093-4E09-B048-A2CDC51DB0E0@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <A2E7E324-C885-4D84-8928-86F5926C0434@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> <67272C53-1908-454A-8E74-14D9A2EA0828@FreeBSD.org> <C6150667-388D-4091-975F-A8BD16FD5625@bsdimp.com> <A2E7E324-C885-4D84-8928-86F5926C0434@bsdimp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 08 Jul 2014, at 18:23, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > > On Jul 8, 2014, at 9:04 AM, Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jul 8, 2014, at 12:56 AM, Dimitry Andric <dim@FreeBSD.org> wrote: >> >>> 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]? >> >> Because it is a silly option that’s mostly an internal knob? We don’t need to support options that trip us up at every turn, and MK_GNUCXX has been doing that since its introduction. > > Also, in the current tree it means different things in different places. In some places it says to build libstdc++, in other places it says to build g++ and friends. This was an oddity introduced by theraven@ in r255321, where he introduced MK_GNUCXX, but I have no idea why he conflated the two. Before this commit, I had a local patch which simply added an option disabling or enabling libstdc++ and libsupc++ (and nothing else). I should have committed that first... :) In any case, it would be nice to still have the option to enable building libstdc++, whatever the used compiler is. -Dimitry [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.22 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAlO8LDcACgkQsF6jCi4glqNInQCfYZrYReFzJL/ORfNtyu9jN2uW YEoAnidn+G/GSflB3eNcOtCWxiQMEG9T =TOYl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A7CE5DAD-C093-4E09-B048-A2CDC51DB0E0>