Opened 8 months ago
Last modified 8 months ago
#69530 new enhancement
cctools:as : clang backend version preference order??
Reported by: | RJVB (René Bertin) | Owned by: | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | Normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | ports | Version: | |
Keywords: | Cc: | jeremyhu (Jeremy Huddleston Sequoia) | |
Port: | cctools |
Description (last modified by RJVB (René Bertin))
port:cctools has
set all_llvm_variants [list llvm16 llvm15 llvm14 llvm13 llvm12 llvm11 llvm10 llvmdev] if {${os.major} < 12} { lappend all_llvm_variants llvm34 } if {${os.major} < 14} { lappend all_llvm_variants llvm37 } if {${os.major} < 19} { lappend all_llvm_variants llvm50 llvm60 llvm70 llvm80 llvm90 }
which leads to this reinplacement in driver.c:
---> Patching driver.c: s:__MP_CLANG_NAMES__:"clang-mp-9.0","clang-mp-8.0","clang-mp-7.0","clang-mp-6.0","clang-mp-5.0","clang-mp-10","clang-mp-11","clang-mp-12","clang-mp-13","clang-mp-14","clang-mp-15","clang-mp-16":
From what I can tell, the $prefix/bin/as
driver then tries to use the listed clang versions as the actual assembler, in the listed order.
Shouldn't that list be sorted in monotonically descending order so the newest available version is used, or is there indeed reason for a severe and increasing penalty of every version after clang 9.0 (severe in the sense that according to the above list even clang-5.0 is to be preferred)?
Change History (1)
comment:1 Changed 8 months ago by RJVB (René Bertin)
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
Note: See
TracTickets for help on using
tickets.