https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80782
--- Comment #20 from Iain Sandoe <iains at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #19) > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #18) > > (In reply to Sergey Fedorov from comment #17) > > > (In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #16) > > > > > > Why not use `llas` (which only needs LLVM) instead of `clang` (which needs > > > LLVM + clang)? > > > I have seen in some ticket that you have built gcc, setting your `llas` > > > (from 7.1.1?) as the assembler. > > > > because most (I would say almost all) people who build GCC for macOS use the > > existing installation of Xcode to provide the assembler and linker. For the > > latest OS versions, building the linker is not even possible - the new one > > is closed source. > > > > So, we _could_ require building the [cctools/LLVM] "binutils" for macOS - > > but we would then need to support a linker that works on "latest". That's a > > step I've been reluctant to take because it adds more support work where > > we're already overloaded. > > Thank you for a clarification. Makes sense. > > Do I understand correctly that at least locally I can just use `llas` from > your LLVM 7.1.1 instead in all relevant cases? Yes, for now; there is still a new release of "xtools" planned at some point - which is especially targeted at 10.5-10.8 (because it can be bootstrapped / uses only C++98 ).
