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]>
>> 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk