Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #45832, comment 2


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 16, 2014, 11:05:03 AM (10 years ago)
Author:
udbraumann
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #45832, comment 2

    v1 v2  
    1 PPC support of {{{clang}}} is less than weak. Either you can build it (e.g. versions 3.1 and 3.3) and it and clang compiles more or less garbage, or you cannot build clang itself (like 3.4; I think the experimental 3.5 or 3.6 are not worthwhile to try), see a small portion of this sad story here: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/43484 where two days ago the maintainer announced the compiling issues I was reporting months ago concerning {{{cctools}}} are now considered as "wontfix". I actually have forgotten how clang versions 2.9, 3.0 and 3.3 were behaving, but I do not think these were much different from those mentioned above.
     1PPC support of {{{clang}}} is less than weak. Either you can build it (e.g. versions 3.1 and 3.3) and then {{{clang}}} compiles more or less garbage, or you cannot build clang itself (like 3.4; I think the experimental 3.5 or 3.6 are not worthwhile to try), see a small portion of this sad story here: https://trac.macports.org/ticket/43484 where two days ago the maintainer announced that the compiling issues I was reporting months ago concerning {{{cctools}}} are now considered as "wontfix". I actually have forgotten how {{{clang}}} versions 2.9, 3.0 and 3.3 were behaving, but I do not think these were much different from those mentioned above.
    22
    3 So for PPC and clang we are lost at present.
     3So for PPC and {{{clang}}} we are lost at present.
    44
    5 Practically spoken, any macports utility which should have a chance to be built on PPC cannot rely on clang. Instead, good old {{{gcc-4.2}}} or {{{macports-gcc-4.8}}} should be accepted (have not tried {{{macports-gcc-4.9}}} so far).
     5Practically spoken, any macports utility which should have a chance to be built on PPC cannot rely on {{{clang}}}. Instead, good old {{{gcc-4.2}}} or {{{macports-gcc-4.8}}} should be accepted (have not tried {{{macports-gcc-4.9}}} so far).
    66
    77For {{{mozjs17}}} I have tried both of them but always get this "architecture was not detected as supported" error (also see my build log):
    … …  
    1313}}}
    1414
    15 Looking into utils.h one can see that the architecture check obviously has failed, i.e. {{{__powerpc__}}} has not been defined. So first guess is that this symbols needs to be defined before in order to let {{{gcc-4.2}}} do the compilation of {{{mozjs17}}}. Hope this can be achieved via an official portfile modification, since I am sure it is not difficult to work around this issue.
     15Looking into {{{utils.h}}} one can see that the architecture check obviously has failed, i.e. {{{__powerpc__}}} has not been defined. So my first guess is that this symbols needs to be defined before in order to let {{{gcc-4.2}}} do the compilation of {{{mozjs17}}}. Hope this can be achieved via an official portfile modification, since I am sure it is not difficult to work around this issue.