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?
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.
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.
