| |||||||||||||
Distributions looking at LLVMDistributions looking at LLVMPosted Mar 29, 2012 12:47 UTC (Thu) by gowen (guest, #23914)In reply to: Distributions looking at LLVM by jwakely Parent article: Distributions looking at LLVM
Absolutely, this was the showstopper for me, last time I tried clang. Any C++ header that (implicitly) included <type_traits> (IIRC) barfed on the fact that in the g++ headers these are implemented with use g++'s variadic macro support. That rules out (among other things) a fair few STL containers like <map>.
(Log in to post comments)
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 29, 2012 20:15 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
FYI, I'm using clang 3.1 (svn snapshot) just fine with Boost versions 1.44.0 through 1.49.0 (Python, Filesystem, Threads, Graph, and other libraries) and the codebase itself uses quite a few STL containers. I haven't tested 3.0 (older Boosts aren't compiling with GCC 4.7.0, so testing is harder) and 2.8 chokes on Boost.
Distributions looking at LLVM Posted Mar 30, 2012 12:17 UTC (Fri) by jwakely (subscriber, #60262) [Link]
(I assume you mean variadic templates, not macros.)
Some time ago Fedora shipped a version of clang (2.8 IIRC) that was completely incompatible with the system GCC headers, which was silly - they should have shipped an older libstdc++ (alongside the system one) just for use by clang. Clang 3.0 and later has far fewer issues and work well with all but the very bleeding-edgiest libstdc++ headers.
|
|||||||||||||