Xcode, GCC, and Homebrew

http://kennethreitz.com/xcode-gcc-and-homebrew.html

by craigkerstiens • 14 years ago

646 103 14 years ago

When people listen to each other, wonderful things happen. Thank you for listening, Apple.

BonsaiDen• 14 years ago

Indeed, this also gives me some confidence that there are still a few people around at Apple who don't like walls around their gardens :)

guns• 14 years ago

Definitely. For instance, X is still supported on OS X after all these years, in large part due to Jeremy Huddleston:

http://lists.apple.com/archives/x11-users/2011/Nov/msg00058....

It's reassuring that I will be able to continue to use my Mac and rxvt-unicode into the forseeable future.

frankPants• 14 years ago

This is indeed great news. Thanks to everyone who was involved in making this happen, it's fantastic news.

pavlov3• 14 years ago

Unfortunately Apple's new Command Line Tools for Xcode doesn't include regular gcc, but Apple's gcc-compatible wrapper around LLVM (i.e. /usr/bin/gcc is a symlink that points to llvm-gcc).

llvm-gcc doesn't compile many projects correctly, including gcc itself (as of Xcode 4.2 there were reports that it's not possible to compile a gcc cross-compiler using llvm-gcc). Hopefully there have been improvements in this regard.

Still, anyone who needs the real gcc will have to install it through some other means.

zmanji• 14 years ago

Why is it not possible to compile gcc with llvm-gcc? The last time I checked llvm-gcc compiles C and C++ with most GNU extensions.

jensnockert3• 14 years ago

Because of bugs and age, the gcc-gcc that Apple shipped when it shipped gcc-gcc couldn't compile the latest gcc either.

(And llvm-gcc is based on that version, which is 4.2.1 or something, about 5 years old)

jensnockert3• 14 years ago

Yes, but the current Xcode doesn't include non-llvm gcc, so it isn't really a surprise that the Command Line Tools for Xcode doesn't include it either.

brigade• 14 years ago

Does clang compile these projects correctly? If not, have you filed a bug? (http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html)

adestefan• 14 years ago

Most of the times you should be submitting bugs to the program that won't compile instead of clang. A lot of software that doesn't compile with clang depends on gcc extensions (most of which are now "official", but have different syntax) or broken behavior in gcc.

nknight9• 14 years ago

You really shouldn't be using terms like "regular gcc" or "real gcc", they don't mean what you seem to think they do. GCC is a modular system specifically to provide for things like LLVM-GCC. LLVM-GCC takes the same form as other GCC back-ends for other platforms. i386 has a GCC backend, ARM has a GCC backend, IA64, MIPS, SPARC... Which of these do you nominate to be "real gcc"?

The only measure by which llvm-gcc is not "real" is that it's not included in the core gcc distribution.

pavlov3• 14 years ago

Point taken. But when llvm-gcc doesn't compile the code that every other instance of gcc found on modern platforms does, it's hard to argue that it's the same thing.

Edit -- the llvm-gcc project doesn't seem to share your opinion of the project as being "just another back-end". They certainly don't claim that it's fully compatible, only that it supports "many" features, "most" options, "a number of" extensions:

"Being derived from the GNU Compiler Collection, llvm-gcc has many of gcc's features and accepts most of gcc's options. It handles a number of gcc's extensions to the C programming language."

http://llvm.org/cmds/llvmgcc.html

CJefferson• 14 years ago

No no, LLVM-GCC really isn't "real gcc".

All the backends which gcc publish share huge amounts of code, in particular all the optimizations framework in the shape of the SSA representation and GIMPLE, support for generating debugging information via DRAWF.

LLVM-GCC just takes the minimum amount of GCC and replaces the entire back-end.

scrod5• 14 years ago

I'll install Apple's LLVM frontend when I can use it to generate ppc object code.

zokier• 14 years ago

I doubt that a five year old GCC would much better choice for average developer/homebrew-user.

simmons3• 14 years ago

I ran into this problem, myself, after I upgraded Xcode a while back. Fink was no longer able to build a tool I wanted to install.

I wonder if there's a compelling reason for these add-on distros (Fink, Homebrew, Macports) to be strictly "build from source" with no option for binary package downloads. For me, it just seems to add long delays in getting a tool installed, and adds frustrating dependencies on my Xcode version.

286c8cb04bda• 14 years ago

> I wonder if there's a compelling reason for these add-on distros (Fink, Homebrew, Macports) to be strictly "build from source" with no option for binary package downloads.

For that to happen, someone has to take responsibility for creating, managing, and distributing those binary packages. That's much easier said than done.

So, the simple answer is that no one has, as of yet, volunteered to do the work.

mikemcquaid4• 14 years ago

Homebrew does have binary packages (we call them bottles). I'm the guy who implemented the feature and I am realising that as I didn't shout very loudly people don't realise that it exists.

For example Qt has a bottle: https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/blob/master/Library/Formula...

The reason we aren't doing this for more packages is basically people power and hosting (as I'm not sure Sourceforge would be happy we hosting the number of binaries we'd want to have).

Hope that explains a bit. Feel free to comment if you think we're taking a good/bad approach here.

Argorak• 14 years ago

Since 2.0, Macports can install binaries if available.

http://lists.macosforge.org/pipermail/macports-users/2011-Ju...

In my experience, those are quite common now - most of the packages I install are delivered as binaries.

ConstantineXVI• 14 years ago

Presuming one can get it to compile; is there any reason we can't have gcc in Homebrew now? Since it's not included anymore, it doesn't clobber any default software[1] (anything that expects `gcc` to be ordinary gcc stands a chance of breaking anyway)

[1] https://github.com/mxcl/homebrew/wiki/Acceptable-Formula

jensnockert3• 14 years ago

I use FSF/GNU/GCC-gcc as my primary gcc, unfortunatly it breaks almost every project that have OS X build scripts since it doesn't accept a lot of Apple-specific options (-arch, I am looking at you).

mikemcquaid4• 14 years ago

`brew install https://raw.github.com/adamv/homebrew-alt/master/duplicates/... should work.

jey• 14 years ago

> llvm-gcc doesn't compile many projects correctly, including gcc itself

While strictly true, it's kind of irrelevant. The official stance is that GCC is the only compiler that is supported to build recent versions of GCC. This has been true since some point around GCC 4.0.

alwillis• 14 years ago

Here's what I recommend for installing "real" gcc: http://caiustheory.com/install-gcc-421-apple-build-56663-wit...

mikemcquaid4• 14 years ago

GCC has been on the way out for a long time since they switched to GPLv3. The latest GCC version provided by Apple was 4.2 which is really quite outdated now.

Clang is a faster and BSD-licensed compiler that Apple is putting all its weight behind now. LLVM-GCC has also been deprecated as it was removed as-of LLVM 3.0.

Clang is the future and it's the default compiler with the Command Line Tools. We just need to wait for upstreams to fix the various issues.

It's worth noting that this is why monocultures are bad. For all the love of GCC (and it is great) we now have a huge quantity of open-source software that only compiles with one compiler. This is a shame and hopefully Clang will help rectify that.

super_mario• 14 years ago

That also means a huge amount of open source software that makes OS X more useful (esp. as a developer OS) is going to get harder and harder to compile on OS X. Which in turn is making OS X a less attractive platform.

mhurron• 14 years ago

"We will recommend you don't use Xcode from the App Store but instead the command-line-tools package"

Ok why? If you install all of Xcode, you're going to have everything included in this tools package as well, aren't you?

doe88• 14 years ago

No it doesn't. Xcode 4.3 is now a standalone .app package including only what is relevant to Xcode. These command line tools are a separate install even if you installed Xcode.

calloc3• 14 years ago

Actually it does. The binaries are all included in the .app, the secondary installer just places binaries in the various locations around the HD.

Look at man xcrun and man xcode-select. Both of which can be used to switch to different Xcode versions easily. In the future it looks like they are planning on making it easier to switch between different versions of Xcode.

And using xcrun one could set up a build environment for make/config with CXX/CC/and all other environment variables pointing to the right location in your /Applications/Xcode.app/ folder.

One thing I don't understand is why Apple didn't just symlink the various binaries into the Xcode app if the Xcode app is installed, instead of having to download another 170MB file.

lbotos• 14 years ago

I'm inferring that they are saying this to the people that only need GCC for homebrew. I don't use Xcode for anything and I hate the idea of installing all of it on my small SSD just for GCC. I've used his OSX-GCC package before and can't wait to use the "official" version now. Kudos!

nohat6• 14 years ago

I remember a terrible experience trying to get gfortran working on osx. I ended up permanently borking my glibc. If this doesn't use the real gcc I imagine similar experiences may await. Nonetheless that is much better than downloading xcode just for GCC.

ruediger2• 14 years ago

Apple doesn't use glibc.

nohat6• 14 years ago

I needed it for my gcc and gfortran install. I am not sure whether osx uses glibc for xcode. Somehow despite removing and replacing everything related to glibc, it was still broken. Never did figure it out.

kzrdude2• 14 years ago

That huge multi-gig download and install of Xcode is one reason I had for leaving OS X for linux. The hurdle for getting FOSS software was too big.

pavel_lishin• 14 years ago

How big was your distro's installer download?

ruediger2• 14 years ago

I'd guess something between 150 MiB and 4 GiB.

amosrobinson• 14 years ago

Mine was 663mb... But I also changed back to Linux from OSX because the window manager sucked, and there was only poor package management then.

jrockway• 14 years ago

40MB.

kzrdude2• 14 years ago

If a linux install is 5GB, then you're choosing yourself which packages to install. Not so in this case.

I decided this in 2005, when a multi-GB download and 4GB install was relatively larger. And no it's not just a one-time thing, I had multiple laptops and I did reinstall them (adding linux to try out etc).

st3fan• 14 years ago

Well now with this new small download you can come back to OS X then! :-)

apl• 14 years ago

How is a one-time download while setting up your system of any significance at all? Sure sounds like picking a screwdriver based on how fast you can unbox it.

JadedEvan• 14 years ago

IAWTC. I'm on the fence about making the move from OS X to Linux. I've spent far too much time fighting unnecessarily complicated issues like this in the Mac environment. GCC issues. Lion Segfaults. MacPorts. Homebrew. Headaches.

Almost all of the tools I need I can install in minutes in Debian with apt-get. It's reliable, easy and gets me doing work instead of crying while I open 20 tabs trying to find solutions to obscure bugs on Google.

batista4• 14 years ago

If what you want is a Linux userland, by all means, err, use Linux.

batista4• 14 years ago

If what you want is a Linux userland, by all means, err, use Linux.

Although, the en vogue thing to do is to use a Linux in a VM. You get to keep OS X and all it's friendliness and indispensable proprietary programs, and you get to have a full Linux dev environment that's also easy to backup and "snapshot".

(Now, if the commercial software for OS X, from iWork to Photoshop, and from XCode to pro audio/video drivers, is not "indispensable" to you, by all means, use Linux).

soc88• 14 years ago

> You can now setup a complete OS X develop environment with a single 171.7 MB package download.

And then, I LOLed.

kenneth_reitz2• 14 years ago

It was 4GB.

mapgrep4• 14 years ago

While this is a nice convenience for registered Apple developers, I noticed that this download requires me to sign a confidentiality agreement and an NDA as part of the registration process (since I am NOT a registered Apple developer).

The nice thing about just installing the OS X developer tools off the OS X DVD is that you do not need to enter into these sorts of legal agreements with Apple (beyond a standard software EULA).

kenneth_reitz2• 14 years ago

It's a preview. The final version won't.

mapgrep4• 14 years ago

Thanks, but, what do you mean? Won't what? Won't require an Apple developer account?

cube132• 14 years ago

The NDA covers prerelease software, which this is not.

mapgrep4• 14 years ago

Not true. In addition to keeping pre-release software confidential, you are obligated "not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Apple Confidential Information" and "not to use Apple Confidential Information in any way."

Apple Confidential Information is defined to include, in addition to pre-release software, "pre-release hardware," "[pre-release] related documentation and materials," and "any information disclosed by Apple to you in connection with Apple Events or Paid Content (defined below)." Paid Content is "certain proprietary content (including, without limitation, video presentations and audio recordings) that Apple may make available to you from time to time for a separate fee." Apple Events are defined to include "certain Apple developer conferences, technical talks, and other events (including online or electronic broadcasts of such events)."

Also, Apple may "modify this Agreement, including any rules and policies at any time. You will be responsible for reviewing and becoming familiar with any such modification."

Relevant clauses below. I've highlighted the above quoted bit in context. Full PDF at https://developer.apple.com/programs/terms/registered_apple_...

If you're fine abiding these terms, by all means use this installer. I'm not saying this is evil or even neccesarily onerous. I Am Not A Lawyer. What I am saying is that this is a new layer of legal agreements which can be bypassed via the DVD install. So there is some degree of tradeoff.

(Update: Added modification clause quote, URL to full agreement.)

---

4. Confidentiality. You agree that any Apple pre-release software and/or hardware (including related documentation and materials) provided to you as a Registered Apple Developer ("Pre-Release Materials") and any information disclosed by Apple to you in connection with Apple Events or Paid Content (defined below) will be considered and referred to as "Apple Confidential Information". Notwithstanding the foregoing, Apple Confidential Information will not include: (i) information that is generally and legitimately available to the public through no fault or breach of yours, (ii) information that is generally made available to the public by Apple, (iii) information that is independently developed by you without the use of any Apple Confidential Information, (iv) information that was rightfully obtained from a third party who had the right to transfer or disclose it to you without limitation, or (v) any third party software and/or documentation provided to you by Apple and accompanied by licensing terms that do not impose confidentiality obligations on the use or disclosure of such software and/or documentation.

5. Nondisclosure and Nonuse of Apple Confidential Information.

[PREVIOUSLY QUOTED BIT]

--------->Unless otherwise expressly agreed or permitted in writing by Apple, you agree not to disclose, publish, or disseminate any Apple Confidential Information to anyone other than to other Registered Apple Developers who are employees and contractors working for the same entity as you and then only to the extent that Apple does not otherwise prohibit such disclosure. Except for your authorized purposes as a Registered Apple Developer or as otherwise expressly agreed or permitted by Apple in writing, you agree not to use Apple Confidential Information in any way, including, without limitation, for your own or any third party's benefit without the prior written approval of an authorized representative of Apple in each instance. You further agree to take reasonable precautions to prevent any unauthorized use, disclosure, publication, or dissemination of Apple Confidential Information. You acknowledge that unauthorized disclosure or use of Apple Confidential Information could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to Apple that may be difficult to ascertain. Accordingly, you agree that Apple will have the right to seek immediate injunctive relief to enforce your obligations under this Agreement in addition to any other rights and remedies it may have. If you are required by law, regulation or pursuant to the valid binding order of a court of competent jurisdiction to disclose Apple Confidential Information, you may make such disclosure, but only if you have notified Apple before making such disclosure and have used commercially reasonable efforts to limit the disclosure and to seek confidential, protective treatment of such information. A disclosure pursuant to the previous sentence will not relieve you of your obligations to hold such information as Apple Confidential Information.

6. Confidential Pre-Release Materials License and Restrictions. If Apple provides you with Pre-Release Materials, then subject to your compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Apple hereby grants you a nonexclusive, nontransferable, right and license to use the Pre-Release Materials only for the limited purposes set forth in this Section 6; provided however that if such Pre-Release Materials are accompanied by a separate license agreement, you agree that the license agreement accompanying such materials in addition to Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement shall govern your use of the Pre-Release Materials. You further agree that in the event of any inconsistency between Section 4 and 5 of this Agreement and the confidentiality restrictions in the license agreement, the license agreement shall govern. You agree not to use the Pre-Release Materials for any purpose other than testing and/or development by you of a product designed to operate in combination with the same operating system for which the Pre-Release Materials are designed. This Agreement does not grant you any right or license to incorporate or make use of any Apple intellectual property (including for example and without limitation, trade secrets, patents, copyrights, trademarks and industrial designs) in any product. Except as expressly set forth herein, no other rights or licenses are granted or to be implied under any Apple intellectual property. You agree not to decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Pre-Release Materials to a human-perceivable form, and you will not modify, network, rent, lease, transmit, sell, or loan the Pre-Release Materials in whole or in part.

marshray• 14 years ago

Apple requires developers to "register" and sign NDAs to download a command-line gcc? For real?

It seems not a week goes by without another reason to be glad I never touch that platform.

Fellow software developers, show some self respect. Quit enabling this abuse.

andrewstewart• 14 years ago

One problem I'm finding is that Ruby refuses to compile on this setup, giving the following prompt instead:

http://cl.ly/EIbT

I'm assuming this is because of Apple's GCC build just being wrappers around LLVM.

calloc3• 14 years ago

Tell ruby to fix their shit and use clang instead.

reaganing• 14 years ago

Having the same issue here.

And I'm guessing, from the submitted article, re-installing 'osx-gcc-installer' wouldn't work.

Hopefully, Ruby will work with newer tools soon.

jfirebaugh• 14 years ago

As of 1.9.3-p125, clang is officially supported by MRI.

If ruby-build refuses to compile with clang, you should open an issue. I've done so for rvm: https://github.com/wayneeseguin/rvm/issues/763

jkbr• 14 years ago

> Before installing, note that from within Terminal you can use the XCRUN tool to launch compilers and other tools embedded within the Xcode application. Use the XCODE-SELECT tool to define which version of Xcode is active. Type "man xcrun" from within Terminal to find out more.

> Downloading this package will install copies of the core command line tools and system headers into system folders, including the LLVM compiler, linker, and build tools.

weavejester2• 14 years ago

Does anyone happen to know if this covers OSX developer header files like Appkit/Appkit.h? Emacs via Homebrew requires them to build, and they weren't included in the GCC for OSX package.

jcurbo• 14 years ago

It's in the article. He says it includes OS X header files that he couldn't include in the other package.

weavejester2• 14 years ago

Oh, I managed to miss that part. Thanks for pointing that bit out!

miles_matthias• 14 years ago

"Open source is incredible."

Yup, I agree. Also, with the news of Mountain Lion today, I've been worried about how much Apple will continue making OS X a platform that any developer can innovate on. This story has re-affirmed that further for me. Awesome!

derrida• 14 years ago

"All you need is a free Apple ID" - seriously Apple, what is with tracking me every time I try to use my computer for something non-trivial?

malkia• 14 years ago

I've found a problem with CMAKE and gcc from the latest Xcode command-line tools. CMAKE simply can't discover the ABI. I've tried gcc, gcc-apple-4.2, llvm-gcc, but finally it was "clang" that worked.

So for anyone using CMAKE, and having problems, this might save you (I was able to recompile GLFW and CEGUI this way):

CMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang

CMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++

boulderdash• 14 years ago

can this live side by side the existing xcode system?

Xcode, GCC, and Homebrew

Related Stories