Fwd: clang vs boost

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: clang vs boost

Douglas Gregor
FYI, here are the instructions I sent to Maurice about teaching bjam to use Clang.

- Doug

Begin forwarded message:

From: Douglas Gregor <[hidden email]>
Date: January 13, 2010 11:33:00 AM PST
To: Maurice Gittens <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] clang vs boost


On Jan 13, 2010, at 12:41 AM, Maurice Gittens wrote:



On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Douglas Gregor <[hidden email]> wrote:


Very cool. Just for kicks, I ran the testsuite for Boost.MPL, and we're passing all but 4 tests there. Not bad!

To tackle Boost, it's worth starting with the regression tests for the lowest-level libraries and working upward. We're not going to get it all in one shot, and it's best to grow the set of libraries that works over time.


Mind giving a few hints on how you convinced the boost build system to use the clang++?
The Boost Jam stuff is foreign to me.

I'm using a Mac, so my ~/user-config.jam contains:

using darwin : 4.2.1 : clang++ ;

which basically treats Clang like GCC with a funny name. It isn't perfect, because bjam inspects the output of

clang++ -dumpversion

and concludes that Clang is GCC 1.1 :)

On non-darwin platforms, something like

using gcc : 4.2.1 : clang++ ;

should work.

That all assumes that clang++ is in your path; otherwise, use a full pathname.

Once we get more working, it's probably worth teaching bjam and Boost.Config about Clang. GCC emulation will only take us so far.

BTW, did you mean to send your message to the cfe-dev list as well? Others might want to use bjam with clang.

- Doug


_______________________________________________
cfe-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev