Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:33:43PM +0100, Måns Rullgård wrote:
>> Diego Biurrun <[email protected]> writes:
>> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:10:05PM +0100, Mans Rullgard wrote:
>> >> This adds a full identification probe of CC, AS, LD and HOSTCC,
>> >> and sets up correct flags and dependency tracking for each.
>> >
>> > Give me a bit more time to review this please, I have some ideas
>> > I would like to try.
>> >
>> >> --- a/configure
>> >> +++ b/configure
>> >> @@ -1742,8 +1744,8 @@ target_path='$(CURDIR)'
>> >>
>> >> # since the object filename is not given with the -MM flag, the compiler
>> >> # is only able to print the basename, and we must add the path ourselves
>> >> -DEPEND_CMD='$(DEPCC) $(DEPFLAGS) $< | sed -e "/^\#.*/d" -e
>> >> "s,^[[:space:]]*$(*F)\\.o,$(@D)/$(*F).o," > $(@:.o=.d)'
>> >> -DEPFLAGS='$(CPPFLAGS) $(CFLAGS) -MM'
>> >> +DEPCMD='$(DEP$(1)) $(DEP$(1)FLAGS) $($(1)DEP_FLAGS) $< | sed -e
>> >> "/^\#.*/d" -e "s,^[[:space:]]*$(*F)\\.o,$(@D)/$(*F).o," > $(@:.o=.d)'
>> >> +DEPFLAGS='-MM'
>> >
>> > Food for thought: Does it make sense to set gcc-specific defaults here?
>> > We might as well set this in the gcc section instead and not provide a
>> > default, which is very unlikely to work with a foreign compiler anyway.
>>
>> These flags work several non-gcc compilers, and even more work with the
>> same sed mangling.
>
> I only see ccc and suncc generating dependencies separately and only ccc
> using DEPEND_CMD.
More of them use those values if they are used as DEPCC.
>> >> @@ -2043,120 +2045,150 @@ tms470_flags(){
>> >>
>> >> - if ! $cc -dumpversion | grep -q '^2\.'; then
>> >> - CC_DEPFLAGS='-MMD -MF $(@:.o=.d) -MT $@'
>> >> - AS_DEPFLAGS='-MMD -MF $(@:.o=.d) -MT $@'
>> >> + if ! $_cc -dumpversion | grep -q '^2\.'; then
>> >> + _depflags='-MMD -MF $(@:.o=.d) -MT $@'
>> >> + fi
>> >
>> > This, btw, is gcc 2.95 cruft that we need to drop.
>>
>> I'm sure someone will cry bloody murder if we do, just like they always
>> do when we drop anything.
>
> Too late, gcc 2.95 support was dropped a long time ago.
>
> 5ccbf80963c1cc54aed97b1c81b1657ab91baf6a
> d2ee495fb241fa4ef5b8b56161328c4379d1c79a
>
> are just two commits that drop support. This is cruft, nothing more.
With the exception of a few inline asm statements, gcc 2.95 still builds
libav just fine.
Did you have any comments on the actual patch?
--
Måns Rullgård
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
libav-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.libav.org/mailman/listinfo/libav-devel
