On 10 Oct 2002, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 10, 2002, Martin Pool <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The problem is that in this context distcc incorrectly thinks the .S > > file is the name of the compiler. > > And it couldn't possibly tell otherwise should the .S file be > executable.
Actually, it can tell, because it looks like a source file name. However, this was broken in a recent version when I took a patch to allow for .S files containing .include lines. :-( distcc probably can't handle distcc "MY 1st C Source File.txt" -c even though perhaps gcc can, but this definitely fits into the class of getting what you deserve. > One more reason to prefer explicit compiler names. (Not that I'm > against the convenience of being able to omit it, I just don't take > this risk myself) Yes, I agree. -- Martin _______________________________________________ distcc mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
