httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Randy Terbush <ra...@covalent.net>
Subject Re: [PATCH] lets do 1.2.5
Date Wed, 07 Jan 1998 18:47:52 GMT
I would agree with Marc's view on this. The flexibility should
be there.


On Wed, Jan 07, 1998 at 11:46:16AM -0700, Marc Slemko wrote:
> No, it is a good thing to be able to do and is in 1.3 I think.
> 
> The reason is that some things aren't cflags.  If you need something
> added on _every_ call to the compiler, cflags won't do it; consider
> when it is linking.  Say you have a compiler that needs a flag to 
> find where it is installed; broken, but who cares.  Say you need
> "cc -foo /my/path " to make it work at all, for linking, compiling,
> everything.  That doesn't go in cflags.
> 
> On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, Jim Jagielski wrote:
> 
> > Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > > 
> > > Martin Kraemer wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Note also that in 1.2, it is not possible to define
> > > >   CC=cc -kansi
> > > > in the Configuration file: if $(CC) contains more than one word, it
> > > > won't be passed properly to the subordinate directories.
> > > 
> > > This strikes me as entirely reasonable; that's EXTRA_CFLAGS'
> > > purpose.  CC should be just the name of the compiler binary,
> > > suitable for feeding to 'which'.
> > > 
> > 
> > I also agree. 
> > 
> > -- 
> > ====================================================================
> >       Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
> >      jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
> >             "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"
> > 

Mime
View raw message