Re: [Caml-list] use cc instead of gcc as default C compiler?

[Christopher Zimmermann <christopher@gmerlin.de>]

On October 23, 2017 9:57:07 AM CEST, Gabriel Scherer <gabriel.scherer@gmail.com> wrote:
>My guess is that cc is a broken compiler on many exotic operating
>system
>(or at least was when the ./configure was first written in the
>nineties),
>and in particular does not support the (modest) gcc extensions that the
>runtime relies on. Using a standardized (yet portable) compiler was
>deemed
>an easier path to configure the OCaml distribution build system than
>trying
>to support the oddities of every Unix's C compiler under the sun.
>
>Note that the compiler distribution builds just fine under MacOS, which
>now
>uses Clang (llvm) instead of GCC -- and that you can configure the C
>compiler you want to use with (./configure -cc ...). I don't see what
>is
>the problem here; and I would think that opting to choose GCC by
>default is
>still a perfectly reasonable choice today.


My Problem is that custom OCaml builds, especially the ones done through opam will use gcc and therefore fail to build projects with not so modest requirements. At the moment I'm just wondering at which level in the toolchain this neuds fixing. OCaml configure, opam-repository or opam source?


>On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 5:05 PM, Christopher Zimmermann <
>christopher@gmerlin.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> the Ocaml configure script uses gcc as default compiler. I wonder
>> whether this is still a sensible default with llvm being a viable
>> alternative.
>> A more portable default would be to use plain `cc`, which will
>usually
>> be the system-wide default compiler.
>> This is relevant because this compiler will also be hardcoded into
>> ocamlopt as default c compiler.
>>
>> Christopher
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://gmerlin.de
>> OpenPGP: http://gmerlin.de/christopher.pub
>> 2779 7F73 44FD 0736 B67A  C410 69EC 7922 34B4 2566
>>


--
http://gmerlin.de
OpenPGP: http://gmerlin.de/christopher.pub
F190 D013 8F01 AA53 E080  3F3C F17F B0A1 D44E 4FEE