This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc

From: "Zack Weinberg" <zack at codesourcery dot com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
Cc: Mike Stump <mrs at apple dot com>, Neil Booth <neil at daikokuya dot co dot uk>, mbp at sourcefrog dot net, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Dara Hazeghi <dhazeghi at yahoo dot com>, distcc at lists dot samba dot org, Thomas Walker <Thomas dot Walker at morganstanley dot com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:45:08 -0700
Subject: Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
References: <2B3465C0-B328-11D7-BDE9-003065A77310@apple.com><87he5u0z3q.fsf@egil.codesourcery.com><orznjltzy7.fsf@livre.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br>

Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> writes:

> On Jul 10, 2003, "Zack Weinberg" <zack@codesourcery.com> wrote:
>
>> Yeah.  I vote always do it, too.
>
> Fine, I'll do that.  As long as there's a way to disable it, I'm fine
> with it.  I dislike that it will prevent legitimate uses of ccache and
> make gcc different from all other compilers in this regard, but, heck,
> I don't want to fight over this.

I don't understand.  On by default makes sense precisely because
there's no bad side effect to this feature.  If there *is* a bad
side effect which I'm not aware of, then my opinion may be different,
but I don't see how having this information in the .i file can
possibly interfere with anything.

zw

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
  - From: Martin Pool

References:
- Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
  - From: Mike Stump
- Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: [distcc] gcc bootstraps with distcc
  - From: Alexandre Oliva

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]