On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 01:11:05PM -0700, Stas Bekman wrote: > Joe Orton wrote: > [...] > >If you want to be conservative, just stick with EXTRA_CPPFLAGS; this > >should be sufficient to make sure apr.h can be safely included. The > >problem is if you use EXTRA_CFLAGS you need NOTEST_CPPFLAGS normally, > >since the latter prevents some GCC warnings which the former will > >induce. > > Thanks, Joe. I'm now testing with this conservative idea. Do you have an > access to Solaris, to give it a try once I polish it on linux?
Yes, I should be able to do that at some point. > [...] > > >>>Finally the ccopts function could do with doing some normalization of > >>>the union of the perl/Apache CFLAGS now since "-g -O2 -D_GNU_SOURCE" etc > >>>will be used twice otherwise. > >> > >>Sure, I'll do that. But is there any harm in those duplicates? > > > > > >Probably not, no. It's just a cosmetic thing really. > > It's going to be a tricky thing to do, besides the obvious 1:1 dups. How > should we deal with cases like: > -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations > -Werror > > -Wall added by mod_perl, the rest are by apache. I think when -Wall is in > place, the rest of -W can be removed, but may be there are extra -W flags > which aren't included by -Wall? Yes, those named above actually are all warning flags which are not implied by -Wall. > or cases when we have: > > -O0 and -O2 > > Should we pick -O2 or -O0? What gcc does when it sees both options? Probably the first listed in argv wins... or maybe the last. Really, this duplication thing is not important to fix at all, I wouldn't worry about it, I shouldn't have brought it up. Regards, joe --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
