log for gcc build: https://pastebin.com/qbmWHm1M <https://pastebin.com/qbmWHm1M>
log for clang12 build: https://pastebin.com/4WG7VsfA <https://pastebin.com/4WG7VsfA> clang14 is more restrictive on C implementation: :info:build /usr/bin/clang -O2 -Wall -Wno-narrowing -I./ -I/opt/local/include -I/opt/local/include/GL -I../../libSNL/src -I../../glut-3.5/src -c -o parser.o parser.c :info:build parser.c:85:5: error: implicit declaration of function 'DrawCommandLine' is invalid in C99 [-Werror,-Wimplicit-function-declaration] :info:build DrawCommandLine(keystroke, strlen(keystroke)+*curshft); :info:build ^ :info:build 1 error generated. :info:build make: *** [parser.o] Error 1 Mark Brethen mark.bret...@gmail.com > On Jul 27, 2022, at 3:49 AM, Chris Jones <jon...@hep.phy.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Please post a complete, clean, build log for the port in question. > > In general GCC should not be used to build c++ (*) as doing so leads to these > c++ runtime mis-matches. You should use clang for c++ (and c as well, > although there is no runtime issues there). > > cheers Chris > > * The latest GCC versions now actually support building against libc++, the > clang runtime, which would make this possible in theory. It needs support in > base though (https://github.com/macports/macports-base/pull/275) so cannot be > used until that is available. > > On 27/07/2022 1:15 am, Mark Brethen wrote: >> Installing CalculiX with a clang variant is successful, however when >> selecting a gcc variant: >> ---> Scanning binaries for linking errors >> ---> No broken files found. >> CalculiX is using libstdc++ (this installation is configured to use libc++) >> ---> Found 1 broken port, determining rebuild order >> You can always run 'port rev-upgrade' again to fix errors. >> The following ports will be rebuilt: CalculiX @2.18+docs+examples+gcc12 >> Continue? [Y/n]: >> Choosing ‘Y’ puts it into and endless re-install. Adding >> 'configure.cxx_stdlib macports-libstdc++’ seems to fix things. >> 1. What is causing this? >> 2. Should the compilers group be removed and stick with clang? >> 3. What changes to the portfile would need to made to permit either compiler >> variant? >> Thanks, >> Mark
