[fsniper]

Title is unfortunately sensational. This is a default target change. Turns out clang still can build binaries for the Pi B+. You just need to be explicit about the architecture. So perhaps a small title change that's more clear about this being only default setting change?

[nottorp]

Doesn’t seem so sensational when it can’t build binaries for the target machine… on the target machine itself…

[fsniper]

Title suggests when using clang, built binaries can't be run on this device. It means it can't build for this architecture at all. But the post eloborates that it's possible to build for this architecture, it's just incorrectly targets another one. It would not matter if it's on the same architecture, or cross compiling. The capability is there. It requires you to be explicit about which architecture you are targeting.

A default for targeting is incorrect, and/or an architecture identification is buggy. But binaries built for Pi B+ - when using correct targeting arguments - can be run on Pi B+.

Now if the title is using wording that suggest a functionality is not there anymore vs the reality, where defaults or identification are incorrect, wouldn't that mean that is hunting for sensation?

[cbmuser]

It’s sensational because it’s wrong. LLVM still supports even ARMv5T which is the baseline of Debian’s armel port.

[dagmx]

It can, it just doesn’t by default. Which is what the person you’re replying to is saying.

[nottorp]

And... does it make sense to you... when you're not cross compiling?

[dagmx]

The point is that it objectively CAN compile to the right target. The capability is not broken.

It however DOESNT due to a configuration bug. Therefore it doesn’t have to make sense because it’s clearly not intentional.

your sentence saying “it can’t build” is therefore incorrect. It’s the distinction between the two capitalized words above.

[brian-armstrong]

If "clang helloworld.c" doesn't produce a working a.out out of the box, I think it's fair to say builds are broken. Plenty of projects won't build in those circumstances without some assistance.

[dagmx]

Again, that’s not the point. I’m not sure how much clearer this can be made:

1. Nobody is saying it’s not a bad situation. Everyone agrees that it’s non ideal.

2. People who are saying that it can’t produce a usable build are wrong, because it absolutely can produce a usable build with the arch flag explicitly provided.

3. People are conflating a bad default with the inability to do something.

It honestly feels like people are substituting their own sentences in and then arguing against a point that isn’t being made.