Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] clang-win, again
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-25 16:42:11

On 10/25/2018 11:10 AM, Peter Dimov via Boost wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>> My understanding, from having previously been active asking questions
>> on the clang developers mailing list, is that there is absolutely no
>> difference between clang targeting vc++, which the "--target=" does
>> above for the compile and the link, and clang-cl. In fact if you look
>> at a release of LLVM on Windows, which in recent builds defaults to
>> targeting vc++, you will see that the clang-cl.exe is exactly the same
>> size as the clang++.exe.
> The difference on the clang side is only that clang-cl accepts cl
> command line options.
> The difference on our side is that clang-cl uses clang-win.jam, derived
> from msvc.jam, and clang++ uses clang-linux.jam, derived from gcc.jam.
> So it's not the same.

I have rued the day I pushed clang-win.jam from someone elses posting
because I wanted to test clang under Windows and it seemed to work.
Mainly because I am not knowledgeable enough with bjam to "fix"
clang-win.jam and no one else was ever interested in doing so. With that
said using clang on Windows works reasonably well for me without having
to use clang-cl, but whether targeting gcc or vc++ clang on Windows has
remained problematical in the linking phase for nearly every clang
release. I am now trying clang 7.0 to see if it is better.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at