You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I encountered a peculiar bug when installing a package. On a system with two compilers installed (GCC and Clang), I chose to build a package with GCC, but to my surprise CK attempted to build it with Clang!
It turned out that the package had a dependency on a library built with Clang. In addition, the library dependency was specified with a higher "sort" value than the compiler dependency. As a result, CK first set up the compiler environment with CK_CXX=gcc (as per my request); then CK overwrote the compiler environment with CK_CXX=clang (as per the environment settings of the library).
A workaround in this case was to lower the "sort" value of the library. But what can be done in general to prevent this counter-intuitive behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Yes, that's right - I also know this issue, and it's true that it's not intuitive (though reasonable from low-level CK implementations). At the moment I do the same - I just move compiler above such lib using 'sort' ... Maybe we can think about cleaner solution in the longer future (when updating/improving soft/package manager) ...
I encountered a peculiar bug when installing a package. On a system with two compilers installed (GCC and Clang), I chose to build a package with GCC, but to my surprise CK attempted to build it with Clang!
It turned out that the package had a dependency on a library built with Clang. In addition, the library dependency was specified with a higher "sort" value than the compiler dependency. As a result, CK first set up the compiler environment with
CK_CXX=gcc
(as per my request); then CK overwrote the compiler environment withCK_CXX=clang
(as per the environment settings of the library).A workaround in this case was to lower the "sort" value of the library. But what can be done in general to prevent this counter-intuitive behaviour?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: