httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <>
Subject Re: Configure and non-gcc platforms
Date Sun, 03 Aug 1997 00:13:23 GMT
Marc Slemko wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Aug 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> > Marc Slemko wrote:
> > > 
> > > Configure likes setting -O2 far too much.  In fact, when I want to use a
> > > different compiler that doesn't grok -O2 I have to work to do so.  Just
> > > setting CC in Configure doesn't work.  Adding a blank "OPTIM=" line
> > > doesn't work.  I actually need something on the OPTIM= line that is
> > > non-blank so Configure won't default to -O2.  
> > > 
> > > Configure should know about what 
> > 
> > Would you prefer Configure use a default of -O instead?
> > 
> > Of course setting CC won't change it, because that just sets the compiler.
> -O2 is a flag put in there for gcc.  It is not something that most
> compilers understand.  If we aren't using gcc, we shouldn't add a default
> of -O2.

Course, 'cc' could be 'gcc' in disguise...

> > Setting OPTIM to "blank" reduces to a default, so of course that
> > wouldn't work.
> The problem is that it is bogus to have to put some fake placeholder in
> there if you don't want any optimization flags.
> My suggestion is that we only add -O2 if we are using gcc, and not add any
> optimization flags otherwise.

I would agree to a "downgrade" to -O instead of -O2 for a default.
I don't think any other "magic transformations" of the setting
of OPTIM should be done, though
> > > 
> > > Oh, I think it would be cool if helpers/TestLib output error messages to a
> > > file and then either gave a prompt about where the file was from Configure
> > > if it failed or automatically displayed it.  
> > 
> > Why? I toyed with a '-s' flag to it; By default TestLib would
> > display all error messages and adding -s to it would make it
> > silent. I still have that code if it's voted as a +1
> So that I can figure out what the heck is wrong.  Otherwise I have no way
> to see how it is trying to compile the program to see that is is using
> option x (eg. -O2) where it shouldn't be.

The idea behind Configure is to create a Makefile with settings as
"accurate" as possible, but not to totally ensure that the settings
are workable. For example, I could set CC to 'flurg' and OPTIM
to '-blarf' if I wanted to in Configuration and Configure would
happily create Makefile with those settings, even if it was total
nonsense, the assumption being that the "user knows best".

After all, once Makefile is done, and one actually does a 'make',
the problem become clear. :)
> I don't particularily care how it is done, but just being told "it doesn't
> work" without being told what doesn't work and without being able to try
> it myself (since it removes the Makefile, etc. at exit) is not good.

I haven't seen this... does Configure actually remove Makefile
if CC and OPTIM don't happily live together?? If so, then that _is_
a bug. Or are you talking about TestLib? If so, then there's an
argument to be made that TestLib shouldn't block error messages,
and it's one that I would most likely vote +1 on.
> > 
> > > 
> > > We should also have a way to override the TestLib test that is documented
> > > in the error message.  Eg. "touch .no-it-isn't-really-broken to override
> > > the test".
> > > 
> > 
> > Huh?
> If someone just wants to say "no, trust me" to bypass the TestLib bit then
> they should be able to without hacking Configure.

Gotcha... Right now TestLib is used to check for an ANSI compiler
and various libs. It would be easy to add a flag to Configure that
made it bypass these tests, but I don't see when it would be
needed... After all, if the TestLib compile fails, the "real"
one almost certainly will as well.

      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services           |
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

View raw message