On Jan 9, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
Peter Tanski wrote:
You're right. As a build system, Cabal shouldn't need a cc-
flavour: it should "guess" what platform it is on and use that
(many other build systems do exactly that). I still find the
combination of cc- options and cl-options without cc-flavour
somewhat confusing since as a normative matter if GHC supports -
cc-flavour shouldn't Cabal? I should let the point rest until I
have hashed out some real alternatives in code and see how they
work.
Why does Cabal even need to know about ccflavour? The only reason
we proposed that GHC had a -ccflavour option is because you can
change the C compiler, so presumably you might change the C
compiler from gcc to CL. ... I think it's reasonable to hardwire
the C compiler command-line syntax based on the target platform.
i.e. no -ccflavour option.
Agreed: with hardwired C compiler commands in ghc Cabal ccFlavour
would not make sense. The -ccflavour option itself is also not
necessary for the Windows port because that port will only support
cl, not gcc, and other ghc versions will support gcc, not cl. As a
future reference, double-compiler support would be necessary for
adding cross-compiler capabilities to ghc.
Cheers,
Pete
_______________________________________________
Cvs-ghc mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/cvs-ghc
