Subject: Re: [boost] clang-win, again
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-26 09:44:06
On 10/26/2018 3:57 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2018 at 18:42, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>> 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.
> If you want to use Clang, targeting gcc [which I guess means that you are
> using MinGW], you should build Clang [clang++] with[in] MinGW and use it
There is no need to try and do that. Earlier releases for Windows were
built targeting gcc, not vc++. It was only with later releases that the
default build of clang for Windows targeted vc++. But whatever the
default build of clang for Windows targeted you could always use the
compile/link -target switch to change it at runtime.
> What we [or I at least] am talking about is using Clang as a native
> windows compiler [a drop-in for cl.exe], please don't keep on mixing up
> those very different things [name mangling keeps getting in the way of
> mixing "gcc-targets" with "vc-targets"].
Aside from the use of different jam files for clang and clang-cl, and
the fact that clang-cl allows vc++ like options, clang-cl and clang
targeting vc++ work exactly the same.
> If you wouldn't mix things up,
> there would not be any linking issues, as out-of-the-box clang-cl will use
> link.exe [the vc-linker]. Using lld with clang [beit ++, -cl or just plain
> clang] works perfectly fine as well.
I have experienced some linking issues when running Boost tests for
various libraries for nearly every release of clang. John Maddock also
brought this up in a past thread. If you had a solution for the linking
issues that worked I did not see it.
> Other than the above gcc-targeting I don't see what [for you] comes in the
> way of proper correct working linking [it works for the rest of us]. I
> doubt clang-7.0 brings any relief in solving your problem, because the
> changes in clang are not at that [basic] level, it also always worked fine
> with clang-6, clang-5, clang-4, clang-3.9 and clang-3.8 [in respect of the
> latter two, the number of ICE's were rather prohibitive for anything over
> "Hello world.", though].
Again this is your experience but not mine.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk