From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mathieu Othacehe Subject: bug#32773: [PATCH] Fix clang libstdc++ header location search Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2019 17:54:29 +0100 Message-ID: <87y2wi4cvu.fsf@gmail.com> References: <19ece273-ea75-fc9d-4e4b-aa3a68deab6d@yahoo.de> <20191113165516.56228-1-david.truby@arm.com> <874kz6698w.fsf@gmail.com> <871rua60fl.fsf@gmail.com> <1d43f450c61f3c3f27ae895ea4c9e61b55d6fb08.camel@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:51132) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iVIOd-0002BG-SL for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:55:04 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVIOc-0002R8-W6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:55:03 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:54537) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iVIOc-0002R4-TS for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:55:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iVIOc-0005HQ-Ri for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 14 Nov 2019 11:55:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-reply-to: <1d43f450c61f3c3f27ae895ea4c9e61b55d6fb08.camel@arm.com> List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "bug-Guix" To: David Truby Cc: nd , "32773@debbugs.gnu.org" <32773@debbugs.gnu.org>, "guix-patches@gnu.org" > Applying both your patch and my patch works for me, in both pure and > non-pure environments. I would suggest taht we also hide clang in the > same way as gcc is hidden (in favour of clang-toolchain) to avoid > confusion, but otherwise it seems these two patches together at least > get things to a working state! Great! > I'd like to see make-clang-toolchain allow you to pick between a > specific libstdc++ or libc++, but that requires more thinking so I > think ideally it'd be better to apply these patches first to get things > to a fixed state. I agree. Let's wait to see if someone has objections and I'll push both patches in a few days. Thanks for your support on this :) Mathieu