On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 9:47 AM, Andy Dougherty <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 10 Feb 2010, Will Coleda wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Andy Dougherty <[email protected]> >> wrote: > >> > For example, there's no easy way to say something like >> > >> > For compiling src/gc/system.c on amd64 on certain flavors of Linux >> > with gcc 4.3.x, optimizations -O[012] are fine, but -O3 and higher >> > won't work. >> > > >> Whoops. We're overengineering some of this. > > I don't think so. That example is very real and almost precisely the > current state of affairs. There are many other examples in the perl 5 > tree. > >> If we want to change a warnings flag, we just need to tack it on the >> end of the command line, the second -Wno-foo will override the default >> -Wfoo. > > Yes, that works for gcc. I don't know about other compilers, but since we > don't really support warnings on other compilers anyway, that's good > enough for now. > >> We can use the existing makefile generation step to conditionally add >> the -Wno-foo, using the #IF and #UNLESS directives already present. > > Yes, but they are too blunt a tool for the task above. They are all we > have, so that's what we do now, but they are still inadequate. They don't > fail, but they are suboptimal. That's all I'm saying. > > Your plan preserves the status quo, which is ok, but if you can think of a > way to generalize it, I think it would be beneficial. That's all I was > trying to say. > > -- > Andy Dougherty [email protected]
I'm pretty sure that the rm_cflags branch will now break the build for any non-gcc compiler; can someone give it a shot? All my development environments are GCC at this point. (Strawberry perl on windows, generic linux box.) -- Will "Coke" Coleda _______________________________________________ http://lists.parrot.org/mailman/listinfo/parrot-dev
