BIND 10 #365: clang++ support

BIND 10 Development do-not-reply at isc.org
Wed Oct 13 07:18:10 UTC 2010


#365: clang++ support
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------
      Reporter:  jinmei        |        Owner:  UnAssigned           
          Type:  enhancement   |       Status:  reviewing            
      Priority:  major         |    Milestone:  y2 12 month milestone
     Component:  build system  |   Resolution:                       
      Keywords:                |    Sensitive:  0                    
Estimatedhours:  0.0           |        Hours:  0                    
      Billable:  1             |   Totalhours:  0                    
      Internal:  0             |  
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Comment(by jinmei):

 Replying to [comment:4 each]:
 > >  - older versions of boost doesn't explicitly support clang++, so I
 simply (and implicitly) required boost >= 1.44
 >
 > Just to make sure... that requirement only pertains if building with
 clang++, right?
 >
 Right.

 > Because 1.44 is very recent and most OS distributions won't likely have
 it yet.
 >
 Right, and that's exactly why I introduced the additional
 -I<path_to_boost>.

 > >  I didn't dig into why, but clang++ probably handles "false" in some
 tricky way.  I didn't change the "true" patterns because it didn't trigger
 an error and when we can use EXPECT_EQ it would be better than
 EXPECT_TRUE.
 >
 > I don't understand this last point.  Why is it better to use EXPECT_EQ()
 when possible?  EXPECT_TRUE() is simpler and clearer.
 >
 On second thought, I think you're right.  I was thinking cases like
 {{{
     EXPECT_TRUE(<exp1> == <exp2>); // should be EXPECT_EQ(<exp1>, <exp2>)
 }}}
 but it doesn't make (much) sense to keep the awkward style of
 {{{
     EXPECT_EQ(true, <expression>);
 }}}

 So I've chanded the "true" patterns throughout the code tree as well.
 It's not a requirement for the clang++ support, but making both
 (true/false) patterns consistent in the same branch would be nice.  It's
 r3197.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/365#comment:5>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development


More information about the bind10-tickets mailing list