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: [libstdc++] libstdc++/7691, pass -Wabi, sanity checks


On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 17:43, Phil Edwards wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 09:42:44PM -0700, Benjamin Kosnik wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > ie
> > 
> > make CXXFLAGS="-fnot-an-idiot -fbigger-magic-wand" all
> 
> The advantage to the enable switch is that such flags are remembered
> for subsequent rebuilds, if necessary.  (It was originally added to help
> rebuild libgcc, back when that was needed.)
> 
> I don't have a big problem with removing it altogether.

Keeping the --enable-cxx-flags (better: making it actually work and
then maintaining it) helps to identify subtle issues regarding how
an installation has been built. I remember situations when building
libgcj failed simply due to some aggressive optimization flags used
for building libstdc++. Defining CXXFLAGS on the "make all" command
line works, but later on it may be difficult to remember how the
stuff had been built. FWIW, a similar flag might be useful for the
other runtime libraries, too.

Just my 0.02€

Cheers.

l8er
manfred



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