Eric Lemings wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Travis Vitek [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Discussion for STDCXX-573
...
want to override that behavior, you would use `gmake PURIFY=1
PURIFYFLAGS=<FLAGS>'.
I agree with keeping the number of new variables to a minimum.
Does anyone have any arguments against using this method?
Suggest using a more descriptive name than PURIFY such as USE_PURIFY,
ENABLE_PURIFY, WITH_PURIFY, or something like that.
I was thinking the same thing. In light of STDCXX-260, using
the WITH_ prefix for these type of things in general (we also
have Valgrind on Linux and cadvise on HP-UX) might be a good
naming convention to go with. I.e., using the traditional
--with-xxx switch to configure would nicely translate to
defining WITH_PURIFY=1 in the generated $BUILDDIR/makefile.in.
It would be nice if users who configured using --with-purify
could add WITHOUT_PURIFY=1 on the make command like to disable
the tool, just like those who configured without it can simply
add WITH_PURIFY=1 for the opposite effect.
Martin
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STDCXX-260
Brad.
