On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Krasimir Angelov wrote:
> I can imagine that we might need 'cl-options' in addition to 'cc-
> options', though.
If the purpose of -ccflavour is to encapsulate any number of
different C compilers, then it would be easier and more general to
add 'cc-flavour' to BuildInfo than to add, say:
cl-options MS CL
scc-options Sun 'CC' compiler (overlaps 'cc-options')
xlc-options IBM XL/C compiler
...
but having different fields for CL and GCC will tell to Cabal to use
the cl-options field for Windows and cc-options for Linux. With
cc-flavour you will force Cabal to always use CL which is unavailable
under Linux.
I don't understand the scenario. From what I imagined, cc-flavour
might specify the CL or GCC (or other) compiler and would be set
differently on different systems: this would be handled by the Cabal
'configure' step, so the choices in the end would be
cc-flavour: cl Win-GHC
cc-flavour: gcc MinGW/CygWin
cc-flavour: gcc Linux, OS X, etc.
...
Does this make sense?
Cheers,
Pete
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
