This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: assembler debug_line support (was Re: [v3] -pedantic-errors vs. extern template)
- From: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
- To: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: David Edelsohn <dje at watson dot ibm dot com>, bkoz at redhat dot com,gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 14:48:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: assembler debug_line support (was Re: [v3] -pedantic-errors vs. extern template)
- References: <200202180151.UAA26664@makai.watson.ibm.com><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com><firstname.lastname@example.org><email@example.com>
>>>>> "Gabriel" == Gabriel Dos Reis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> a) Shouldn't xgcc use the assembler found by configure?
> b) Why are xgcc and configure finding different assembler to use?
Because xgcc checks your path earlier than configure, which only checks it
if it can't find it in one of the standard paths. This makes some sense;
for configuration, we want to look at an assembler that everyone can see,
while it might also be convenient to be able to override the assembler used
by an already-built compiler. However, I think that PATH is not the way to