On 9 Jul 2003, Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 10:09:26AM +0200, Markus Werle wrote: > > I already showed in this thread that it is quite simple to > > just use the convention that only args after > > Unfortunately that would make it incompatible with both of it's oldest > calling syntaxes: > > CC=distcc > CC="distcc gcc" > > I personally think that the --compiler option is overkill, and having > distcc treat the first (non-distcc-option) word on the line as the > compiler name is a good idiom to preserve.
Actually, it's the first word that does not look like an object or source file, so that we can handle gcc foo.o -o foo But that's by the by; as you say I think it's pretty handy to be able to concisely invoke it that way. I use a Debian (not Gentoo) system at work and being able to quickly switch between cc and gcc is nice. > I can also see that having > the ability to control distcc through options would be a nice addition > to the various existing ways to control distcc, but not as a replacement > for them (e.g. I would continue to use masquerade mode in my setup). Yes, I can see it would be useful. > The problem then becomes, how can you still support the first syntax > above while adding a new option syntax. One way would be to have a > "start parsing options" idiom that must occur first that cannot occur > on a normal compiler command-line. Like this: > > distcc --distcc --hosts=foo,bar --verbose gcc > > The --distcc tells us two things: (1) start parsing distcc options, and > (2) there must be a compiler name at the end of the options. > > Alternately, we make all distcc options start with a unique prefix, e.g. > "--distcc-": > > distcc --distcc-hosts=foo,bar --distcc-verbose gcc > distcc --distcc-help > distcc --distcc-version > > This lets you snarf all strings that start with --distcc-, and stop > whenever the prefix is no longer there. This idiom would not require > the compiler name to be present (since the current heuristic on > defaulting to "cc" could be used if the first non-distcc string looks > like an option). > > Either of these would preserve the current distcc calling syntaxes: > > distcc -o foo -c foo.c > distcc gcc -o foo -c foo.c > > while also adding the ability to include new distcc-affecting command- > line options (if the user desires to use them). I quite like #2. I suppose another reason I hesitate to add it is that most of the time, users should not have to specify any options. Hosts are probably better stored in a file for most cases, and most of the other options should not need to be set except for debugging. Is that true? Do you find yourself using options often? -- Martin __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/distcc
