Re: Mac Build Error

[David Morsberger <dave () morsberger com>]

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu> wrote:

> On Jan 20, 2016, at 11:09 AM, David Morsberger <dave () morsberger com>
> wrote:
>
> > This is what I am also tracking down. It has to do with the way cmake is
> instantiating the compiler. The --serialized-diagnostics option is what
> appears to be hiding the error.
>
> --serialize-diagnostics takes an argument, which is the name of a file to
> which the diagnostics are written, in a binary format.

Yes, there is a binary .dia file generated and I cannot find any
information on the format or tools to read it.


> Clang documentation sucks.  Srsly.  The man page doesn't enumerate the -W
> options; the website:
>
>
> http://clang.llvm.org/docs/UsersManual.html#options-to-control-error-and-warning-messages
>
> does, but I'm not sure how to get the manual for an *arbitrary* version of
> Clang (the GCC folks are kind enough to provide online manuals, complete
> with listings of compiler flags, for multiple versions), and the word
> "serialize" appears nowhere on that page.

Welcome to my world :) I've searched all over for information and searched
my filesystem for any reference to it.


> It might be that, when the tests are done, ld is being run directly,
> rather than by the gcc/clang driver, and that -as-needed isn't getting
> passed to it.  It obviously is getting passed when the actual *build* is
> done.

I may ask the gcc/clang team why the different behavior when --serialized
argument is and is not used.


> Perhaps when CMake was being designed, its designers should have looked at
> the documentation for another configuration system - I think it's called
> "autoconf" or something such as that - and noticed that it offered not only
> macros to try compiling a file ("compiling" as in "turning a source file
> into an object file, without trying to link anything"), but macros to try
> *linking* things, which can come in handy if, say, to pick a purely
> *hypothetical* example, you're trying to see whether a given linker flag
> works.

Think of how "boring" life would be if there was only one way of doing
things.


> Or perhaps they mistakenly had the attitude that "we take care of all the
> platform details, so you don't have to".

I WILL find out how they take care of the platform details.

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe