Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] clang-win, again
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-10-26 13:43:53

On 10/26/2018 9:18 AM, degski via Boost wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 14:57, Edward Diener via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> What makes you think I have not downloaded and installed clang binaries?
> You are mentioning that you have experienced problems building Clang/LLVM
> using GCC and MinGW. Based on that I conclude that that is what you are
> doing [call me stupid, no probs] ... and then that makes me think that the
> issues you experience are related to you doing that.
> All of my setups for using clang on Windows have involved downloading
>> and installing binaries. As others on this thread have expressed there
>> are problems using clang on Windows to test Boost libraries. I have
>> given what setup works for me best.
> What works best. How do you compare best over better, if things fail?
> AFAICS, the only result that matters is the one that works correctly. The
> config you posted does [as confirmed by Peter], per design [no criticism],
> the wrong thing [you implicitly invoke boost-build linux stuff, what could
> possibly go wrong?].

Why can't you get it in your head that when you use clang targeting vc++
you have clang as the compiler using the vc++ headers and libraries
creating a Windows executable, and when you use clang targeting
mingw-64/gcc it uses the mingw-64/gcc headers and libraries and also
produces a Windows executable. If both are not testing clang on Windows
I do not know what is.

If I, and obviously the OP of this thread, could get clang-cl using
clang-win to work reliably I would suggest using that. But it is not my
experience that the latter works very well. If that setup works for you,
that is fine.
> degski

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