Re: gcc and C++0x on Mac OS X

[Jarno Rajahalme]

I've been using GCC 4.5.1 from MacPorts to compile Octave (3.3.52+), in 
addition to GCC 4.4 and Apple GCC 4.2. 

Also, I've used GCC 4.4 compiled dependencies (e.g. fortran libraries) with 
Octave compiled with GCC 4.5.1.

Have not compiled with FLTK yet.

  Jarno

On Oct 26, 2010, at 17:47 , ext John Swensen wrote:

> 
> On Oct 26, 2010, at 10:38 AM, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 
>> On 26 October 2010 04:00, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Oct 26, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Kai Habel wrote:
>> 
>>>> P.S. Is there a more recent gcc suite available from Apple/for
>>>> MacOS for you to test with?
>> 
>>> Unfortunately, I've not been successful mixing versions of gcc since
>>> libtool was added. Thus, to build with a different version of gcc,
>>> I'd have to rebuild all the dependencies. Which is a task I've not
>>> attempted before.
>> 
>> I'm a little worried about this. Apple is quite clearly trying to move
>> away from gcc. They stopped using gcc when it became GPLv3 and are
>> pouring all of their efforts in clang instead. I would like to be able
>> to start using C++0x constructs in Octave, but this is going to be
>> impossible with gcc on Mac OS X if you can't update it.
>> 
>> Is this an actual concern, or am I worried over nothing? How backwards
>> compatible should Octave's code remain? C++0x will mostly likely be
>> finalised by 2012, by the estimates I've seen, and gcc already
>> implements much of it. By contrast, clang is way behind. Many C++0x
>> features could clean up Octave code. Will we be able to use them?
>> 
>> - Jordi G. H.
> 
> My recent compilations have all been using the GCC 4.4.5 as provide by 
> MacPorts.  The only dependency I have to compile on my own is FLTK, as the 
> NO_X11 variant for MacPorts doesn't provide a OpenGL capable compilation of 
> FLTK.  MacPorts also provides GCC 4.5.1 and GCC 4.6 (I'm not sure when all 
> the C++0x feature became available), but I haven't compiled Octave with 
> either one of them.
> 
> On the other hand, getting Octave to compile with clang and llvm *may have* 
> some advantages.  I am not a compiler expert by any stretch of anyone's 
> imagination, but earlier discussion on the mailing list indicated that LLVM 
> may provide the shortest path to JIT compilation via a transformation of the 
> Octave Parser tree into an LLVM compatible format.  Has anyone successfully 
> compiled even the most recent sources with clang/clang++/llvm?  Does anyone 
> know how the GCC frontend for LLVM works?  Would it still provide the JIT 
> possibilities without using clang/clang++?
> 
> John Swensen
> 
>