[bug#43679] [PATCH 3/5] gnu: clang-toolchain: Create 'cc' and 'c++' symlinks.

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Efraim Flashner <efraim@flashner.co.il> skribis:

> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 09:53:18AM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:

[...]

>> >> +                     ;; Create 'cc' and 'c++' so that one can use it as a
>> >> +                     ;; drop-in replacement for the default tool chain 
>> >> and
>> >> +                     ;; have configure scripts find the compiler.
>> >> +                     (symlink "clang" (string-append out "/bin/cc"))
>> >> +                     (symlink "clang++" (string-append out "/bin/c++"))
>> >> +
>> >>                       (union-build (assoc-ref %outputs "debug")
>> >>                                    (list (assoc-ref %build-inputs
>> >>                                                     "libc-debug")))
>> >> -- 
>> >> 2.28.0
>> >
>> > Isn't this something we've turned down patches for in the past with gcc?
>> 
>> That is true, and, ahem, I even know a person who was against it.
>> 
>> But!  I think it’s a bit different here: (1) we’re only changing
>> ‘clang-toolchain’, not ‘clang’, (2) while most build systems look for
>> ‘gcc’ in addition to ‘cc’, few of them look for ‘clang’.
>> 
>> ‘--with-toolchain’ is useful even if ‘clang-toolchain’ cannot be dropped
>> in (it allows you to try out different GCC versions, for instance), but
>> I think it’s more useful if one can use it to build their code with a
>> different free tool chain.  One use case that comes to mind is
>> portability testing for C/C++ developers.
>> 
>> WDYT?
>
> Do we want to have gcc-toolchain provide a cc binary then too? It seems
> like it would also help people who have a project they want to build by
> hand which has the compiler set as cc and they install the
> gcc-toolchain.

I’m not enthusiastic (I think it’s good that build systems and tools
keep referring to ‘gcc’) but I guess I’ll have a more difficult time
arguing against it now…

Ludo’.