3.0.4 builds for solaris 2.7 and 2.8

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb 23, 2002, Brad Lucier <lucier@math.purdue.edu> wrote:

>> 
>> 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.

> I meant that the top-level configure would be allowed to give a
> warning about a valid subconfigure option.

So what's the gain?  User thinks he misspelled the option when he
didn't, or gets used to the warning and ignores it when it strikes for
real.

>> However, such patch wouldn't life very long, since we have a volunteer
>> autoconfiscating the top-level configure script.

> OK, does that mean I should stop discussing this, that it just won't be
> done?

Let's say that I wouldn't like to maintain this, but if you would,
feel free to contribute patches to enable this feature, and keep
watching gcc-patches for new configure flags to either remind people
to adjust the top-level configure or adjust it yourself :-)

-- 
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