This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 3.0.4 builds for solaris 2.7 and 2.8
- From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
- To: Brad Lucier <lucier at math dot purdue dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 23 Feb 2002 01:45:45 -0300
- Subject: Re: 3.0.4 builds for solaris 2.7 and 2.8
- Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
- References: <200202230437.g1N4bPj07398@banach.math.purdue.edu>
On Feb 23, 2002, Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> wrote:
> OK, how about a warning from the top-level configure for options it
> can't recognize?
It would be a maintenance burden to whoever modifies any of the
sub-packages' set of supported options.
The whole point of --with/--without and --enable/--disable flags in
configure is that it's open-ended, such that you can use the same set
of flags for any packages you build (unless they happen to use the
same flag for totally different purposes), such that you can create a
single wrapper configure script (like the one in gcc) that passes the
same flags to all of the sub-packages without being concerned with
their meaning. It's up to each package to interpret the flags it
recognizes and ignore those that it doesn't.
That said, I'll give you that the set of configure options accepted by
each sub-package doesn't change very often, so it wouldn't be that
much of a maintenance burden. So I wouldn't oppose a patch that
implemented the feature you suggest.
However, such patch wouldn't life very long, since we have a volunteer
autoconfiscating the top-level configure script.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist Professional serial bug killer