Horton

Thread

  1. GCC vs clang

    Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> — 2010-11-16T14:41:38Z

    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@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011160940
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

  2. Re: GCC vs clang

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-11-16T15:16:49Z

    Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.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

  3. Re: GCC vs clang

    Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> — 2010-11-16T16:21:48Z

    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

  4. Re: GCC vs clang

    Greg Sabino Mullane <greg@turnstep.com> — 2010-11-16T18:04:13Z

    -----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@turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 201011161302
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

  5. Re: GCC vs clang

    Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> — 2010-11-16T18:10:15Z

    "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg@turnstep.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