[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Disabling optimization

From: Andrew Suffield
Subject: Re: Disabling optimization
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:51:52 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 03:44:46PM -0600, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> >>>What you're all trying to say is this:
> >>>
> >>>CXXFLAGS="-g -O0 ${CXXFLAGS}"
> >>Nope, this prevents overriding CXXFLAGS from the environment.
> >
> >It does not. I do it all the time.
> How does the user portably remove/override the -g and -O0 options?  It 
> seems that you are depending on the user's compiler to support a way 
> to subtract from existing options.  You are also expecting that the 
> user's compiler supports -O0 and doesn't simply exit.

You appear to be expecting the user's compiler to compile C++. That's
a pretty poor expectation from the outset (it might be g++ 2.95 or

You can't do *anything* without expecting stuff from the
compiler. Pick some real goals and some realistic expectations, don't
just handwave about vague notions of 'portability' to unnamed systems
which are broken in unspecified ways.

  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield
 : :' : |
 `. `'                          |
   `-             -><-          |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]