Re: GCC vs clang

I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at
least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached
patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a
better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the
GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that
removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make
takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an
issue for another day.

--
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011160940
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

Greg Sabino Mullane <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
> I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at
> least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached
> patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a
> better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the
> GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that
> removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make
> takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an
> issue for another day.

What happens to plperl?

regards, tom lane

On tis, 2010-11-16 at 09:41 -0500, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> I've been trying to get clang working enough that I can at
> least get HEAD going for a build farm client, and the attached
> patch is the bare minimum to get it working. There may be a
> better way to do this, but as indicated in a past thread, the
> GNU_SOURCE variable does not play nicely with clang. Getting that
> removed does allow me to do a working make and make check. The make
> takes orders of magnitude longer than gcc does, but that's an
> issue for another day.

The underlying issue in clang has been resolved, so the next release
should work out of the box. I suggest we wait for that.

http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5365

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: RIPEMD160

Tom asked:
> What happens to plperl?

It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl,
and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other
warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper
(once the GNU_SOURCE problem is solved).

Peter chimed in:

> The underlying issue in clang has been resolved, so the next release
> should work out of the box. I suggest we wait for that.
>
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5365

Sweet, good to know. I'll update my clang repo and see if it does the
trick.

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg(at)turnstep(dot)com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011161302
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iEYEAREDAAYFAkzix3IACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgKxQCgl2vbUGS9plb1Zm7Sg+sdKR+5
oIUAn0CI9Dky2bQsYkoPhV6yZrQWosvQ
=f0+q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg(at)turnstep(dot)com> writes:
> Tom asked:
>> What happens to plperl?

> It still doesn't work. I was going to leave it out via --without-perl,
> and save fixing that for another day. There's a handful of other
> warnings when making, but --with-perl is the only showstopper
> (once the GNU_SOURCE problem is solved).

I'm hesitant to put in a patch that breaks plperl, even if it's for
a situation where you otherwise couldn't build at all; because plperl
would still be broken after the clang problem is resolved.

Better to get a fixed copy of clang.

regards, tom lane