From: Jack H. <ho...@br...> - 2011-10-22 15:25:24
|
In an effort to implement the alternative fix of forcing SL to use gcc-4.2 for cc/gcc and g++-4.2 for c++/g++ in the path-prefix-10.6 compiler_wrapper, I decided to test the fink patch... --- PkgVersion.pm.orig 2011-10-20 14:46:20.000000000 -0400 +++ PkgVersion.pm 2011-10-22 11:04:44.000000000 -0400 @@ -4953,6 +4953,19 @@ done IFS="\$save_IFS" export PATH="\$newpath" +# use Apple gcc-4.2 compilers on SL +case `uname -r` in +10.*) + case \$compiler in + cc|gcc) + compiler="gcc-4.2" + ;; + c++|g++) + compiler="g++-4.2" + ;; + esac + ;; +esac exec \$compiler "-arch" "$arch" "\$@" EOF close GPP; Oddly this change to the installed compiler_wrapper doesn't survive through the bootstrap. If you watch /sw/var/lib/fink/path-prefix-10.6 carefully during the bootstrap, you will see that immediately after the installation of fink, the compiler_wrapper installed in /sw/var/lib/fink/path-prefix-10.6, contains the expected change... # use Apple gcc-4.2 compilers on SL case `uname -r` in 10.*) case $compiler in cc|gcc) compiler="gcc-4.2" ;; c++|g++) compiler="g++-4.2" ;; esac ;; esac however shortly afterwards in the bootstrap, the compiler_wrapper is replaced with one missing this change (from the toplevel compiler_wrapper.in I guess). It is odd that we don't see this problem with the path-prefix-clang compiler_wrapper which also differs from the top-level compiler_wrapper.in. Any ideas on how to suppress this second installation of the compiler_wrapper and why are we doing that in the first place? Jack |