Обсуждение: GCC vs clang
I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an issue for another day. -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011160940 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
Вложения
Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at
> least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached
> patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a
> better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the
> GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that
> removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make
> takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an
> issue for another day.
What happens to plperl?
regards, tom lane
On tis, 2010-11-16 at 09:41 -0500, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote: > I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at > least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached > patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a > better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the > GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that > removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make > takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an > issue for another day. The underlying issue in clang has been resolved, so the next release should work out of the box. I suggest we wait for that. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5365
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Tom asked: > What happens to plperl? It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl, and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper (once the GNU_SOURCE problem is solved). Peter chimed in: > The underlying issue in clang has been resolved, so the next release > should work out of the box. I suggest we wait for that. > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5365 Sweet, good to know. I'll update my clang repo and see if it does the trick. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011161302 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iEYEAREDAAYFAkzix3IACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgKxQCgl2vbUGS9plb1Zm7Sg+sdKR+5 oIUAn0CI9Dky2bQsYkoPhV6yZrQWosvQ =f0+q -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.com> writes:
> Tom asked:
>> What happens to plperl?
> It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl,
> and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other
> warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper
> (once the GNU_SOURCE problem is solved).
I'm hesitant to put in a patch that breaks plperl, even if it's for
a situation where you otherwise couldn't build at all; because plperl
would still be broken after the clang problem is resolved.
Better to get a fixed copy of clang.
regards, tom lane