Subject: Re: [boost] clang-win, again
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-08-12 11:56:07
On 8/12/2018 12:09 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 04:52, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> I agree. It is not very good. In general clang under Windows, whether
>> using gcc or vc++ has many problems
> I don't understand what you mean with this, you are using clang and lld,
> and you arer talking about gcc and vc?
When using clang-cl the vc++ compiler is the backend. It is possible to
use clang with mingw(-64)/gcc as the backend on Windows. In either case
clang has almost always exhibited its problems in the linking stage
rather than the compiler stage due to the fact that it sometimes
mismatches the names it creates with the backend compiler's libraries it
uses. In one case on Windows, attempting to run the VMD tests, it fails
pretty miserably in the preprocessor stage whereas mingw(-64)/gcc
>> , but almost always with the linker
>> and rarely with the compiler, although it still can not handle VMD with
>> its preprocessor. I gave up trying to get the clang developers to pay
>> any attention to any of this a while ago.
> Clang 7.0 RC is out, other than the filesystem thing, there don't seem to
> be many issues. You could give that a spin. I always use trunk and there
> are improvements (also in constexpr f.e.).
Even building clang on Windows has been problematical for a while now
and past appeals to clang developers about this have resulted in silence
on their end of things. Getting clang to work on Windows has been very
low priority for their developers in the past. Others can spend time
reporting problems about their Windows implementation to clang
developers if they want, but I have given up that cause.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk