On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 08:33:17AM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 22 November 2012 00:04, Andreas F??rber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: > > Am 22.11.2012 00:19, schrieb Peter Maydell: > >> On 17 November 2012 13:10, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > >>> On 17 November 2012 13:02, Andreas F??rber <andreas.faer...@web.de> wrote: > >>>> Am 16.11.2012 17:37, schrieb Peter Maydell: > >>>>> +if test "$(uname -s)" = "Darwin"; then > >>>>> + # On MacOS X the standard supported system compiler is 'cc' (usually > >>>>> clang), > >>>>> + # and 'gcc' is a legacy llvm-gcc which is rather elderly and best > >>>>> avoided. > >>>> > >>>> This comment strikes me as wrong in this generality. It should at least > >>>> be qualified with OSX version numbers. > >>> > >>> How about "and if 'gcc' is not the same as 'cc' then it is a legacy > >>> llvm-gcc > >>> which is rather elderly and best avoided" ? I'd rather not get into having > >>> to research which versions of OSX shipped with which compiler as 'cc', > >>> when really the point is that 'cc' will always give you whichever compiler > >>> Apple thought was the best default for that version. > >> > >> Andreas: ping? are you happy with this suggested rephrasing? > > > > Not quite... clang is a relatively new thing. On v10.5.8 ppc64 'cc' is a > > symlink to a real (well, Apple-flavoured) 'gcc-4.0'. > > Yes, that's the case where gcc is the same as cc, ie the "if" condition > in the comment is false. (I guess this is saying my rephrasing is at > best not very clear...) > > > What about "... (clang on recent systems) and 'gcc' may be a legacy > > llvm-gcc ..."? > > Sounds ok. > > >> Do you > >> think this is 1.3 material? (now the static-stublib stuff is in it's > >> less critical, but it still seems like the right idea...) > > > > I wouldn't be opposed to taking the default change into 1.3 as long as > > we can still override it to a specific compiler. > > --cc=whatever remains available. > > > But then again there's the question of why not doing it on Linux as well > > now that we seem to compile under clang, we have cc -> gcc-4.7 on > > openSUSE 12.2. Among our supported platforms only Solaris comes to my > > mind where cc might be an incompatible proprietary compiler. > > Do any of the BSDs ship with some odd non-GPL thing as cc ?
non-GPL yes, odd no. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
