Hi Gary, Peter, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 03:43:04PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > > 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. > > Ah yes. Thinko. Currently we should recommend: > > ../configure CC='/opt/pgcc-78.9/bin/pgcc -foo-option' > > But, I agree that supporting multiple compilers in users' PATH is also > a nice feature. Like you said, "let's do both!" :-) We'll need an > entry in sh.test to spot switches missing the '*' inside 'case $cc_basename' > to save us forgetting in the future as part of the patch too.
Go ahead. > >> cc_basename=`$echo X"$compiler" | $Xsed -e 's%^[ ]*\([^ ]*\).*$%\1%'` > > > > Why? People writing > > CC=' gcc' > > by accident are people that get run over by accident. :-> > > Be liberal in what input you accept... besides, plenty of our concatenation > loops leave a leading space, so it won't hurt to get into the habit of > taking leading whitespace into account. > > I forgot the path stripping too, gah! Let me try again: > > cc_basename=`$echo X"$compiler" \ > | $Xsed -e 's%.*/%%;s%^[ ]*\([^ ]*\).*$%\1%'` I wonder whether any compiler other than of the GCC type uses $system-gcc as in x86-linux-gnu-g++ then we might want to recognize that as well. (For GCC itself that is not necessary, its front-ends are not recognized by the name but by __GNUC__). * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 02:29:20PM CET: > > I'm confused as to whether all this means that my original patch is > acceptable or not :) Your original patch is acceptable (but not sufficient to solve all of the problems). Regards, Ralf
