[cmake-developers] Suspicious Clang versions

[Rolf Eike Beer]

sean at rogue-research.com wrote:
> Yeah, it's confusing... :(
> 
> > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937899&build=2986383
> > 
> > (MacOS 10.7)
> > 
> > The CXX compiler identification is Clang 4.0.0
> > 
> > I do not believe that.
> 
> Apple has their own fork/branch of clang which they use in Xcode.  AFAICT
> it's not so different from the open source one, it's probably more to do
> with them not wanting to tie Xcode's release schedule to clang's.  Anyway,
> very confusingly, Apple uses their own version numbering scheme.  So
> that's "Apple clang 4.0".  It comes with whatever version of Xcode that
> machine's running (4.4 I think?).

Wow, this idea is so awesome, they probably should file a patent for it. So 
any version checking like I do in the CXXFeatures test ("I have compiler 
version X, the supported features should be ...") is entirely mood for Clang. 
Great.

> > Especially as
> > 
> > http://open.cdash.org/testDetails.php?test=201937829&build=2986379
> > 
> > (MacOS 10.8)
> > 
> > shows 3.4.0. But since even 3.4 does not seem to be released I wonder
> > what's
> > going on there?
> 
> That one is the open source clang, which I build from svn.  It's not from
> Xcode.  It's my 'bleeding edge' build machine.  clang is always getting
> stricter and getting new warnings, so this help us fix them before a
> CMake/VTK/ITK release.

Fine. Why don't they name it 3.3.99 then? ;)

Eike
-- 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://public.kitware.com/pipermail/cmake-developers/attachments/20130805/6f8225a2/attachment.sig>