On Dec 15, 2010, at 8:28 PM, Matthew Knepley wrote: > 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.
Not true. I it is easy for me to remember --with-cc="gcc -m32" but not easy for me to remember --with-cc=gcc CFLAGS="-m32" LDFLAGS="-m32" and CPPFLAGS="-m32" ! Note that configure/make handles what I do just fine but Jed's cmake had trouble and suggested changing configure to move the variables. Barry > > 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
