From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mathieu Othacehe <m.othacehe@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Clang c++ include path
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 18:17:03 +0100
Message-ID: <87a792bahi.fsf@gmail.com>
References: <87wocpz2zl.fsf@gmail.com> <871ruwlpkh.fsf@elephly.net>
 <5f44a50d15fd7620bb8fe579a3563f9e220dd28c.camel@arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:50581)
 by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1)
 (envelope-from <m.othacehe@gmail.com>) id 1iUDJT-0007f5-K3
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:17:16 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
 (envelope-from <m.othacehe@gmail.com>) id 1iUDJR-0001h2-Ub
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:17:15 -0500
Received: from mail-wm1-x32e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::32e]:53475)
 by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16)
 (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <m.othacehe@gmail.com>)
 id 1iUDJR-0001gs-KE
 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:17:13 -0500
Received: by mail-wm1-x32e.google.com with SMTP id u18so91825wmc.3
 for <guix-devel@gnu.org>; Mon, 11 Nov 2019 09:17:13 -0800 (PST)
In-reply-to: <5f44a50d15fd7620bb8fe579a3563f9e220dd28c.camel@arm.com>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
 <guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
 <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: David Truby <David.Truby@arm.com>
Cc: "guix-devel@gnu.org" <guix-devel@gnu.org>, nd <nd@arm.com>


Hello David,

> I actually have two ways of fixing it though and am unsure which is
> more appropriate. The non-controversial one is to just get the
> libstdc++ header directory for the default gcc and patch clang to look
> there. However, as an end user of the clang package I would rather have
> a make-clang-toolchain procedure that takes a gcc-toolchain version and
> gets the standard library from that. I've got implementations of both
> of these, does anyone have an opinion which one would be preferred?

At first glace, the second option seems better but don't hesitate to
post both versions and we'll discuss them :)

Thanks,

Mathieu