Somewhere in the tickets Marcus has this at least 1/2 done... K
Sent from my iPhone > On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:09, Ken Cunningham wrote: >> >>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 7:03 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>> >>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 18:01, Ken Cunningham wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Feb 4, 2018, at 6:56 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> The cxx11 portgroup is fine for C++11, but what do we want to do about >>>>> C++14, C++17, and future versions? >>>> >>>> By providing a current clang, like 5.0, all these are covered I believe. >>>> >>>> The PG is really misnamed....should be "modern compiler" PG or similar. >>> >>> Well, for example, Apple clang < 602 doesn't understand -std=c++14, but the >>> portgroup only blacklists clang < 500. So for C++14 ports like textmate2 >>> I've been adding the clang < 602 blacklist in addition to including the >>> portgroup. But the more new C++ standards get introduced, the more >>> complicated this will get. >> >> Please not more portgroups, tho. > > Agreed. That was the point I want to raise. And if we want a single portgroup > that handles specifying different language standards, it makes sense to > rename it now, before we go changing all the cxx11 1.0 ports, so that we > don't have to change those ports again a second time. > > >> How about we just move up that clang floor as time goes by? > > I would not be in favor of that, because it would result in users > unnecessarily being forced to install newer compilers for ports that don't > need them. > > I would be in favor of a new option in which the port author can specify the > language standard, and the portgroup takes care of the details. Actually > there should probably be an option for each language: maybe configure.cc_std > and configure.cxx_std. >
