Re: Question about CFLAGS

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008, Sérgio Durigan Júnior wrote:
> Yes, it is a bug. What we want to know is if we should append $CFLAGS to
> $BASECFLAGS (i.e., BASECFLAGS="$BASECFLAGS @CFLAGS@") or use *only*
> $CFLAGS when the user provides it.

Presumably BASECFLAGS exists for some useful purpose?

Don't forget that you need to worry about linking as well so if you 
take this path, you need to think about LDFLAGS as well.

> Yes, that's possible indeed. Actually, we're thinking in just use CC and
> forget the whole CFLAGS thing... Maybe that's the most intelligent
> approach.

That is the approach which worked for me.  If you are using the IBM C 
compiler, then I believe that you can choose the architecture using an 
environment variable as well.  The problem with using an environment 
variable when building Python is that Python may want to save the 
incantation which works for later use when building Python modules and 
it is unlikely to save the environment variable.

I use a different install prefix for 64-bit apps and have a 
config.site which automatically supplies 'CC' and 'CXX' definitions 
which are actually tiny shell scripts that look like this:

#!/bin/sh
exec gcc -m64 "$@"

With this approach, there is less chance that a bug in the package 
will mess things up.  It makes building 64-bit apps as easy as adding 
--prefix=/usr/local64.  A huge time-saver.

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/