[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: updated win32 macro
From: |
Robert Collins |
Subject: |
Re: updated win32 macro |
Date: |
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:56:43 +1100 |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Faylor" <address@hidden>
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 09:12:57AM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Christopher Faylor" <address@hidden>
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 11:29:34PM +1100, Robert Collins wrote:
> >> >Neato.. But can we put CFLAGS="$WIN32FLAGS $CFLAGS" or will that
> >break
> >> >other things? AFAIK (Chris - any comment) the -mwin32 needs to go
> >> >first..
> >>
> >> It breaks builds from the gcc or gdb build trees which override
CFLAGS
> >> from the top level. In my current tree, I've had to add additional
> >> stuff to the Makefile to get things to work.
> >>
> >> I think that setting CC=stuff will suffer from the same problem.
> >>
> >> So, I think we will have to make changes to both configure.in and
> >> Makefile.in, unfortunately.
> >
> >
> >I think that Earnie was having success building unaltered packages
with
> >CC=gcc -mwin32 ./configure ...
> >
> >I would really like to minimse the alterations needed outside of
> >configure.in - can you think of any package in particular likely to
have
> >trouble with CC=gcc -mwin32 ? (So that we could test it)
>
> Yes. If you configure this way in the tcl directory and then cd ..,
the
> tcl directory won't build because CC is overridden by the toplevel
make.
>
> If you use CC='gcc -mwin32' configure in the top-level, then we might
> as well just get rid of -mwin32 completely. This will cause every
> single package to be built with -mwin32 whether it needs it or not.
>
> IMO, I don't think it is a good idea to override CC anyway. It may
> be a quick fix but it will lead to confusion if/when people say
> 'make CC=something'.
>
> cgf
>
So in a nutshell, because some packages change CFLAGS, and others change
CC, we require everyone to change their Makefiles ?
I agree that overriding CC is bad - thats why it was changed to CFLAGS.
But CFLAGS is the standard way of changing the compiler behaviour - why
do the makefiles over ride that? And how common a practice is that?
In fact, on second thought, packages that override CFLAGS just use the
low level interface
AC_PROG_CC_WIN32
EXTRA_CFLAGS="$WIN32FLAGS"
Rob
- Re: V4a win32 macro, (continued)
- Re: win32 compiler test V3a, Thomas E. Dickey, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Christopher Faylor, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Robert Collins, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Christopher Faylor, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Robert Collins, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Christopher Faylor, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro,
Robert Collins <=
- Re: updated win32 macro, Christopher Faylor, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Robert Collins, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Akim Demaille, 2001/03/19
- Re: updated win32 macro, Robert Collins, 2001/03/19
- Re: updated win32 macro, Akim Demaille, 2001/03/19
- win32 v4, Robert Collins, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Robert Collins, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Christopher Faylor, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Lars J. Aas, 2001/03/15
- Re: updated win32 macro, Lars J. Aas, 2001/03/15