Can I have a response to this? On mån, 2010-04-19 at 09:17 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On sön, 2010-04-18 at 23:14 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > severity 578303 wishlist > > retitle 578303 would be nice if CC could hold part of commandline > > tags 578303 wontfix > > thanks > > > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 09:39:12PM +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > > > > >Followup to #576967, here is a valid example of a multiword CC > > > > > >CC='ccache gcc' > > > > That's abuse of the CC variable. Only if treated as part of a command > > line (as opposed to a single command) will it work. > > What else would you use it for? > > > The CC variable is not supposed to hold a part of a commandline, but a > > single command. > > I have to ask, where do you get this idea? The above has worked forever > and I have had it in use for a long time. Using multiple words for CC > is common in autotools land and is required in some situations, such as when > you have to choose the target architecture by means of an argument. Why are > you so opposed to allowing it? > > Also note that using multiword values is common for other command variables, > such as > > CPP = gcc -E > YACC = bison -y > > These are analogous to CC in all respects I can think of, except of course > that make doesn't set them by default. > > > As is documented in its man page, when ccache is used in an environment > > too large to compose the commandline by hand, use the alternative > > approach of symlinked commands instead of appending ccache in front of > > the actual compiler name. > > There are always ways around everything, but that doesn't mean one has > to battle to prohibit the alternatives. >
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
