From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 13 17:52:17 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61B88FA4; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ob0-x230.google.com (mail-ob0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F97B2327; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:52:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ob0-f176.google.com with SMTP id wp4so837474obc.21 for ; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:52:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=0rmA2WjXH26yhNqjs10XwljV6C0wIjdugAkZ5LnRbC4=; b=XsoJkr7wXhWULqNXX0RMDUg/DwlsPXIqbHN7LJGQkoIXPqe21lAY9oYWecoLzVnyoG w4fDQcqdbqsFTGbdFXP7FM4VnM/7Xl9I5zA3nRGtxgwm61ctePssIifjXqc2bgQG0E1F EUfzTD0RESnaRB32RNbFm8ZEY3+/1AJIq7M6/YZa5s/EPGftleXJASaJqEEeasrjQayQ KO1SbbmWuOHoYxxSDRRsSN6oDg/I7OQ5cH3d2+35UMp/+4UeE6AiXN2HlCljcLe80ucZ EyjxAPZyspFCmoeIPfHmwrmw1AYSpN/2DWMXiv5a8I7EMd499QY1pnnwGxI4IRqjAzoz HKrw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.93.67 with SMTP id cs3mr37557305oeb.12.1384365136323; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:52:16 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.76.69.1 with HTTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:52:16 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20131113173143.Horde.a-9M7JQ_vHo3tpDIMsGK6g1@webmail.df.eu> References: <20131112163219.GA2834@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <77CB2B92-216A-4C80-B033-7E582B5F0DFC@FreeBSD.org> <20131112165422.GA2939@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20131112175556.GA3319@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20131112201922.GA4330@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20131113173143.Horde.a-9M7JQ_vHo3tpDIMsGK6g1@webmail.df.eu> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 12:52:16 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: libc++ vs. libstdc++ usage in the ports tree (was: Re: Are clang++ and libc++ compatible?) From: Ryan Stone To: mva@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: FreeBSD Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.16 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 17:52:17 -0000 On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Marcus von Appen wrote: > This brings up another point into which I am running with the previously > discussed blender issue. > > Let's assume port A_defcompiler does not specify a compiler and c++ lib, it > will default to libc++ and clang++ on 10.x or newer, correct? > If now a port B_gnuish depends on port A_defcompiler, but at the same > defines > GCC + libstdc++, the resulting binary might link against libc++ and > libstdc++ > at the same time. This in turn makes the port unusable. The same applies > to the other way around. > > Right now we do not have mechanism to detect and handle those flaws. > Maintainers > might be even less aware of those issues. Does anyone know a proper way to > deal > with this at the moment on 10.x+ or is this something that was missed until > now? How different is this from the previous situation? As I understand it previously A_defcompiler would be linked against the system libstdc++ and B_gnuish would be linked against the gccXX port libstdc++. In my experience libstdc++ does not have good ABI stability between versions so shouldn't you have the same potential for problems?