On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Barry Smith <bsmith at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
> > Jed wrote > > > As for the other issue (CC="gcc -m32" and such), would it be acceptable to > make all of BuildSystem (instead of just the cmake part) convert that to, > effectively, CC=gcc CFLAGS="-m32" LDFLAGS="-m32"? > > > > Matt and Satish, > > So if the user does --with-cc="gcc options" would it be ok if configure > stripped those options from cc and stuck them into the CFLAGS and LDFLAGS > variables of configure automatically? Or is there a problem with that>? > I see at least one problem with this, namely that 'options' would need to be in CPPFLAGS if the C compiler was being used as the preprocessor. I do not like this because the user told us what they wanted. If they wanted options in CFLAGS, its jsut as easy to put it there. Matt > Barry > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20101215/741635ba/attachment.html>
