Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #43917, comment 71


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jun 7, 2014, 9:04:08 AM (10 years ago)
Author:
cjones051073 (Chris Jones)
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #43917, comment 71

    v1 v2  
    2222The situation is a little complicated...
    2323
    24 ROOT5 - ROOT uses its own home backed interpreter (CINT) nothing to do with any real compiler. Whenever the user requests 'real' compilation, ROOT always uses the compiler that was used to build itself, in order to guarantee compatibility. This is by design, not a bug.
     24ROOT5 - ROOT uses its own home baked interpreter (CINT) nothing to do with any real compiler. Whenever the user requests 'real' compilation, ROOT always uses the compiler that was used to build itself, in order to guarantee compatibility. This is by design, not a bug.
    2525
    26 ROOT6 - ROOT has dropped CINT in favour of cling, which is a new interpreted based on clang. In order to do this, root builds its own internal clang library. However, for 'real' compilation tasks it still uses the same compiler as used to build itself. Again, by design, not a bug.
     26ROOT6 - ROOT has dropped CINT in favour of cling, which is a new interpreter based on clang. In order to do this, root builds its own internal clang library. However, for 'real' compilation tasks it still uses the same compiler as used to build itself. Again, by design, not a bug.
    2727
    2828>
    … …  
    3333> Not that I'm aware of.  This is not really a valid case and represents a bug in root itself.  The project (upstream) should make the distinction between the toolchain used to build it and the toolchain it uses.  Without such a distinction, cross compilation is utterly impossible.
    3434
    35 I disagree. its not a bug in ROOT but part of its design.
     35I disagree. Its not a bug in ROOT but part of its design.
    3636
    3737>