Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
From: Edward Diener (eldiener_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-06-24 11:12:33
On 6/24/2015 9:39 AM, Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Peter Dimov
>> Sent: 24 June 2015 13:52
>> To: boost_at_[hidden]
>> Subject: Re: [boost] Using Clang compiler in place of GCC
>>
>> Paul A. Bristow wrote:
>>> And I've run Peter's suggested clang++ -v test.cpp with
>> ...
>>> and got the output clang_v_test.log
>>>
>>> Obviously I am still missing something, but I'm still puzzled at what.
>>
>> It now compiles, so <iostream> is fine, but tries to link using
>>
>> "C:\\Program
>> Files\\mingw-builds\\x64-4.8.1-win32-seh-rev5\\mingw64\\bin\\g++.exe" -v -m32 -o a.exe
>>
>> which fails. You might try placing c:\mingw\bin in the PATH before the above one and see if it'll
> link using
>> the g++ from there.
>
> I do indeed intentionally have both mingw64 and now, reluctantly, mingw as well.
>
> So pushed c:/mingw/bin first and
>
> Bingo!
>
> Thanks to both for your invaluable help.
>
> (Sighs - Why does this have to be so unnecessarily difficult???)
It is unnecessarily difficult because the clang developers, like the
mingw-64 and mingw developers, cannot be convinced by intelligent
programmers that hardcoded paths and the necessity of adding directories
to the PATH variable, should not be a necessity for merely
compiling/linking source code.
It is sometimes utterly wearying talking to these people, probably quite
decent C++ programmers in their own right, and trying to convince them
that their "Linux" toolsets on Windows need a better way to be used.
They are just stuck in their own ways and usually refuse to budge.
At the same time, because mingw(-64)/gcc and clang are free tools and we
are all appreciative of the ability to use them to test out Boost
libraries, it is better to be civilized and a bit circumspect when
trying to convince them of anything. Remember that these are normally
first-rate compilers and their focus is on the compiler itself and not
on the usability or documentation of their product.