[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler
From: |
Samuel Meder |
Subject: |
Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler |
Date: |
20 Apr 2003 09:22:23 -0500 |
I haven't seen any replies to this and I'm curious why the basename bit
was dropped (without it things like CC=/opt/blah/ecc will break). Not
portable enough?
/Sam
On Tue, 2003-04-15 at 06:29, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Thursday 10 April 2003 05:49, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > Samuel,
> >
> > I should have seen this when the original patch was submitted, sorry
> > I didn't notice. The patch you've posted should work. I'm checking
> > it in, and if you still have trouble, let us know.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> The `basename $CC` part seems to have been lost in cvs-HEAD, and both patches
> are missing in release-1-5.
>
> `Allan
>
> >
> > Samuel Meder wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 20:52, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > > It seems to me that both the before and after code is incorrect. The
> > > > reason why I say is is that $CC may contain the command plus some
> > > > arguments which are required for it to behave in some consistent way.
> > >
> > > So it is naive to think that those things should go into CFLAGS? Off the
> > > top of my head I can't think of a single scenario where I'd want them in
> > > $CC rather than $CFLAGS. Do you have one?
> > >
> > > > This means that the if $CC is 'foo -bar' then
> > > >
> > > > case $CC in
> > > > foo)
> > > >
> > > > will not match, but
> > > >
> > > > case $CC in
> > > > foo*)
> > > >
> > > > will. Parsing out just the first word from the specification would
> > > > solve the problem.
> > >
> > > I still maintain that you need `basename $CC` (basename does not strip
> > > arguments on the systems I tried). I don't really care to argue about
> > > the CC vs. CFLAGS issue (still curious about a example though) so I've
> > > attached a patch that adds *s.
> > >
> > > /Sam
> > >
> > > > You should not expect that the user won't add compiler options to the
> > > > base compiler name since this may be required to select a compiler
> > > > version, target architecture, or some other global option which is
> > > > best specified via the compiler specification.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > > >
> > > > On 9 Apr 2003, Samuel Meder wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2003-04-09 at 20:35, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 9 Apr 2003, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > > > > > > Only half paying attention, but doesn't this break an earlier
> > > > > > > patch that allowed things like "-mno-cygwin" to be included in
> > > > > > > the $CC variable? Or am I mis-remembering?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it sounds like it does. It also would break important things
> > > > > > like
> > > > > >
> > > > > > CC="gcc -V 3.1.1"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > which I happen to be using at the moment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please read the patch. It changes
> > > > >
> > > > > linux*)
> > > > > case $CC in
> > > > > icc|ecc)
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-KPIC'
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-static'
> > > > > ;;
> > > > > ccc)
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
> > > > > # All Alpha code is PIC.
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-non_shared'
> > > > > ;;
> > > > > esac
> > > > > ;;
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > > linux*)
> > > > > case `basename $CC` in
> > > > > icc|ecc)
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-KPIC'
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-static'
> > > > > ;;
> > > > > ccc)
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,'
> > > > > # All Alpha code is PIC.
> > > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-non_shared'
> > > > > ;;
> > > > > esac
> > > > > ;;
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are using gcc you will never hit this case statement. Also, a
> > > > > quick grep -r on mno-cygwin gives no hits other than ChangeLog.1 and
> > > > > mail/cygwin32. My understanding is that the option stripping that
> > > > > libtool does has changed a little so it may not longer need special
> > > > > processing. It should be orthogonal in any case.
> > > > >
> > > > > /Sam
> > > > >
> > > > > > Bob
> > > > > > ======================================
> > > > > > Bob Friesenhahn
> > > > > > address@hidden
> > > > > > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
> > > >
> > > > ======================================
> > > > Bob Friesenhahn
> > > > address@hidden
> > > > http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Name: ChangeLog.patch
> > > ChangeLog.patch Type: text/x-patch
> > > Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > > Name: libtool.patch
> > > libtool.patch Type: text/x-patch
> > > Encoding: 7bit
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Libtool-patches mailing list
> > > address@hidden
> > > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool-patches
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Libtool mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
>
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, (continued)
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Robert Boehne x238, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Charles Wilson, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Samuel Meder, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Samuel Meder, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Bob Friesenhahn, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Charles Wilson, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Robert Boehne, 2003/04/09
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Allan Sandfeld Jensen, 2003/04/15
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler,
Samuel Meder <=
- Re: $CC and intel icc/ecc compiler, Allan Sandfeld Jensen, 2003/04/10