Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] detect-compiler: clang updates

["Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason" <avarab@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Aug 07 2021, Jeff King wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 04:56:04AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>
>> > On Sat, Aug 07, 2021 at 04:02:45AM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote:
>> >
>> >> Perhaps I've missed some obvious reason not to do this, but why are we
>> >> parsing the --version output of two modern compilers, as opposed to just
>> >> asking them what type/version they are via their usual macro facilities?
>> >> I.e. something like the below:
>> >
>> > That would probably work OK in practice, but it actually seems more
>> > complex to me (how do other random compilers react to "-E -"?
>> 
>> We only care about gcc and clang in that script, which I think have
>> supported that form of "-E" on stdin input for any version we're likely
>> to care about for the purposes of config.mak.dev. It seems unlikely that
>> we'll care about non-modern compilers in config.mak.dev, so using more
>> modern features there seems fine (it's all for opting us into even more
>> modern warning flags and the like...).
>
> Yeah, but we don't find out what we have until we run the script in
> question. I guess it is OK as long as we redirect stderr, ignore the
> exit code, and only look for a positive outcome in the output (your
> patch does the latter two already).
>
> I also wondered how this might interact with CC="ccache gcc" (where
> caching might fail to notice version changes). But from some quick
> testing, it looks like it doesn't cache in this case (neither stdin, nor
> with -E).
>
>> > Is it possible for us to get other output from the preprocessor that
>> > would confuse an eval?).
>> 
>> Probably, I just meant that as a POC. We could pipe it into some
>> awk/grep/cut/perl or whatever that would be more strict.
>
> That would probably be better. I would be curious to hear from somebody
> with a mac if this technique gives more sensible version numbers for the
> Apple-clang compiler.

It does, on the gcc304 box on the gccfarm (recent apple M1 Mac Mini):

    avar@minimac ~ % uname -a
    Darwin minimac.moose.housegordon.com 20.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 20.4.0: Thu Apr 22 21:46:41 PDT 2021; root:xnu-7195.101.2~1/RELEASE_ARM64_T8101 arm64    
    avar@minimac ~ % clang --version
    Apple clang version 12.0.5 (clang-1205.0.22.9)
    Target: arm64-apple-darwin20.4.0
    Thread model: posix
    InstalledDir: /Library/Developer/CommandLineTools/usr/bin

    avar@minimac ~ % cat >f  
    GNUC=__GNUC__
    GNUC_MINOR=__GNUC_MINOR__
    GNUC_PATCHLEVEL=__GNUC_PATCHLEVEL__
    clang=__clang__
    clang_major=__clang_major__
    clang_minor=__clang_minor__
    clang_patchlevel=__clang_patchlevel__
    
    ^C

    avar@minimac ~ % clang -E - <f
    # 1 "<stdin>"
    # 1 "<built-in>" 1
    # 1 "<built-in>" 3
    # 384 "<built-in>" 3
    # 1 "<command line>" 1
    # 1 "<built-in>" 2
    # 1 "<stdin>" 2
    GNUC=4
    GNUC_MINOR=2
    GNUC_PATCHLEVEL=1
    clang=1
    clang_major=12
    clang_minor=0
    clang_patchlevel=5

I think nobody who's using clang derivatives is screwing with these
macro variables, they're just changing whatever the "product name" or
whatever is in the --version output.