This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: 3.0.4 builds for solaris 2.7 and 2.8


On 23-Feb-2002, Alexandre Oliva <aoliva@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2002, lucier@math.purdue.edu wrote:
> 
> > I've reported before being bitten by misspelling configure options,
> > and configure does not report an error.
> 
> So which of the configure scripts do you suggest to look for unknown
> flags and report them?
>
> Remember that it can't be the top-level configure because it's used to
> build a number of different sub-packages, each of which has its own
> set of configure options that keep changing, and it can't be any of
> the sub-packages' configure scripts because those shouldn't have to
> know about each other :-)

Obviously the different configure scripts should cooperate.

For example, one way to achieve this would be for the configure
scripts to accept a new option `--list-supported-options',
which would cause the configure script to just echo the
supported --with-* and --enable-* option names.
The top-level configure script could then invoke all the
subdirectory configure scripts with --list-supported-options
to figure out which options were supported by the subdirectory
configure scripts, and could then issue an error or warning
message for options which are not supported.

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh@cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.


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