Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 02:04:51PM CET: > > Welcome back :-)
Thanks! (freezing) > > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 01:21:14PM CET: > >>Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >> > >>My thoughts exactly. cc_basename is only ever used in case statements, > >>so lets set it with: > >> > >> cc_basename=`$echo X"$compiler" | $Xsed -e 's%^.*/%%;s%[ ].*$%%'` > > > > > > You guys ever encountered a system with compilers named > > gcc-3.4.1 > > gcc-3.4.2 > > icc-8.1 > > ... > > Yep, but you would need to build a different libtool for each compiler. > Relying on the compiler checks performed on one working for another is > likely to cause trouble. Sure. But we are talking about m4/libtool.m4, right? This happens at configure time. I want, in a libtoolized project, ../configure CC='pgcc-78.9 -foo-option' to succeed in choosing Portland compiler options. No multiple compilers involved here. > > I think the original patch was useful, and have yet to see an instance > > where it causes trouble (e.g., two compilers starting with the same > > prefix; that could be disambiguated by leaving out the * at the end of > > the case pattern on a case-by-case basis). > > >From a maintenance point of view, keeping the fix isolated in 1 line of > code will save us from forgetting the * in case statements in future > patches. Well, yes. Maybe it could be worth doing s#-.*## to kill version appendices. But that would be more limiting than necessary IMVHO (nobody specified version appendices had to look like this). > > Independently still, cc_basename should be calculated like above > > (not like is done currently, and also not like Gary suggested, > > > > | cc_basename=`$echo X"$compiler" | $Xsed -e 's%^.*/%%;s%[ > > ]*.*$%%'` > > > > which looks quite bogus to me, as it deletes everything.) > > D'oh! Good catch. :") > > cc_basename=`$echo X"$compiler" | $Xsed -e 's%^[ ]*\([^ ]*\).*$%\1%'` Why? People writing CC=' gcc' by accident are people that get run over by accident. :-> > > Maybe we need to adjust for things like ccache and distcc here, so the > > thingy takes the second argument (I still have not looked at how they > > are typically used together with libtool, so this is just speculation) > > for better matching. Dunno if anybody has ever used those together with > > non-GCC compilers and with libtool. > > Maybe worth a scribble in TODO? Yep. Regards, Ralf