This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [libstdc++] libstdc++/7691, pass -Wabi, sanity checks
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- To: Phil Edwards <phil at jaj dot com>
- Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 21:42:44 -0700
- Subject: Re: [libstdc++] libstdc++/7691, pass -Wabi, sanity checks
- Organization: Red Hat / San Francisco
- References: <20020828221458.A26047@disaster.jaj.com>
> 1) As noted in PR 7691, --enable-cxx-flags can no longer take multiple
> options in a quoted string, like it used to, and like the documentation
> says. Quoting the argument is now defeated by the higher-level configury
> at some point; the strings are just passed through too many layers of
> shell expansion to survive as a single word.
Hmm. The other option is just having people use CXXFLAGS directly, and
removing this enable flag.
make CXXFLAGS="-fnot-an-idiot -fbigger-magic-wand" all
> The simple solution is to not use whitespace-seperated flags in the argument.
> Losing the quoting doesn't matter then. I propose to require the flags to
> be colon-seperated, e.g, --enable-cxx-flags="-foo:-bar-:baz". I considered
> comma-seperated instead, but that would wreak havoc when trying to pass
> -Wl or -Wa or -Wp options.
Hmm. I dunno about this. Is there something similar in libjava, or in
the gcc build/configure stuff?
It seems like maybe more effort should be put into figuring why the
toplevel configure munges a whitespace-separated list of flags now, when
it didn't before.
> 2) We now pass -Wabi all the time.
This is a great idea.
> 3) Building libstdc++ has a standalone package (i.e., without the compiler)
> hasn't worked in a long time, and it's not supposed to work. This checks
> to make sure that user isn't massively confused on that point. I don't
> know whether we'll continue to release libstdc++ snapshots in the future,
> but if we do this might help and can't hurt in any case.
Great idea. I think removing all references to building libstdc++ as a
standalone package should be removed from the docs, if they are not already.