On Mon, Nov 07, 2016 at 10:12:59PM +0100, Matthieu Volat wrote: > On Mon, 7 Nov 2016 16:59:36 +0000 > Brooks Davis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 08:36:22AM +0100, Marcus von Appen wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > is there a specific reason, why we do not (yet) have openmp support for > > > clang via compiler:openmp? With devel/openmp in the ports tree, I'd > > > expect compiler:openmp to set > > > > > > LIB_DEPENDS+= libomp.so:devel/openmp > > > > > > for compiler=clang. CFLAGS and LIBS/LDFLAGS might be tweaked on a > > > per-port level. > > > > I talked with Baptiste about this in Belgrade. I think the best way > > forward would be to remove the OPENMP option from the llvm ports and > > alter the clang-patch-fopenmp.diff patch to use the .so from > > devel/openmp. > > > > I have a major deadline at the end of the week so it definitely won't > > happen this week. > > > > Would not that make that every clang use the llvm 3.8 libomp snapshot? It > might be useful to use later versions in some cases, but anyway, that would > be great!
It would mean sticking to a single version, but I'd be pretty surprised if mixing them ended well so that's probably for the best. > It would also be awesome if base clang would be able to find omp.h and libomp > more "out of the box" once the package is installed... libomp is pretty easy once I realized I needed to hardcode the path to the .so, I'll have to see what's involved for omp.h. -- Brooks
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
