#37463: llvm-3.2 does not build / universal variants semantics should be changed -----------------------+----------------------- Reporter: vince@… | Owner: jeremyhu Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.2 Resolution: | Keywords: universal Port: llvm-3.2 | -----------------------+----------------------- Comment (by jeremyhu@…): Replying to [ticket:37463 vince@…]:

When building llvm-3.2 I get this error:

Attach main.log

Besides, the ‘universal’ variant should not mean building a universal compiler, but building a compiler than can compile for both i386/x86-64, which is the default case. The classical meaning of ‘universal’ should be transferred to some other variant.

No. +universal means that the built binaries will run on either machine. This is true for *all* ports. Making it have a different meaning (ie CTARGET rather than CHOST) for toolchain ports is nonsensical. Furthermore, there is no reason to care about CTARGET for llvm because it is not as restricted as gcc and can support multiple targets with the same build. -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/37463#comment:1> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS

#37463: llvm-3.2 does not build / universal variants semantics should be changed -----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: vince@… | Owner: jeremyhu@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.2 Resolution: | Keywords: universal Port: llvm-3.2 | -----------------------+------------------------ Comment (by vince@…): Replying to [comment:1 jeremyhu@…]:

No. +universal means that the built binaries will run on either machine. This is true for *all* ports. Making it have a different meaning (ie CTARGET rather than CHOST) for toolchain ports is nonsensical. Furthermore, there is no reason to care about CTARGET for llvm because it is not as restricted as gcc and can support multiple targets with the same build.

Have a look at gccXX ports: {{{ -> port installed gcc47 The following ports are currently installed: gcc47 @4.7.2_2+universal (active) -> file /opt/local/bin/gcc-mp-4.7 /opt/local/bin/gcc-mp-4.7: Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 }}} The universal flag in this case enables the multilib option, which means: "please generate a compiler that can be used for both x86-64 and i386 code generation" ; there is no way to generate a ‘universal binary‘ gcc. I don’t see why llvm/clang would not adhere to the same convention, which seems reasonable to me: consider a port like atlas which depends on gcc47 for its +gcc47 variant. If I build a universal atlas, I don’t care about gcc being a universal binary: what I desire is a gcc that can compile atlas for both x86 and i386 (or ppc and ppc64); that’s exactly what the universal variant of gcc offers me. Now if I build clang/llvm without the universal variant, I also get a compiler able to generate code for both x86/i386, that’s what I want. But if I now desire to build atlas with the universal variant, macports will rebuild clang with the +universal option, which is at minimum a waste of resources… -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/37463#comment:3> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS

#37463: llvm-3.2 does not build / universal variants semantics should be changed -----------------------+------------------------ Reporter: vince@… | Owner: jeremyhu@… Type: defect | Status: new Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.2 Resolution: | Keywords: universal Port: llvm-3.2 | -----------------------+------------------------ Comment (by vince@…): I agree it can seem weird, but MacPorts dependencies primarily target library linking, while depending on a compiler never assumes this meaning: no port links against compiler libs beyond STL, libfortran or other vital libs that are precisely affected by the --multilib flag. For instance, does I really need a universal llvm-3.2 to build a universal cctools ? No. So why should Macports force me to build a universal llvm-3.2 to get a universal cctools? -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/37463#comment:5> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS

#37463: llvm-3.2 does not build / universal variants semantics should be changed ------------------------+------------------------ Reporter: vince@… | Owner: jeremyhu@… Type: defect | Status: closed Priority: Normal | Milestone: Component: ports | Version: 2.1.2 Resolution: duplicate | Keywords: universal Port: llvm-3.2 | ------------------------+------------------------ Changes (by jeremyhu@…): * status: new => closed * resolution: => duplicate Comment: Your build failure is because you're using python3. #32575 -- Ticket URL: <https://trac.macports.org/ticket/37463#comment:7> MacPorts <http://www.macports.org/> Ports system for Mac OS