On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 05:58:58PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Suffield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Andrew> Uh, that made no sense at all. Are you saying that you should not > Andrew> write code, because it's not possible to write code that works on > Andrew> every platform? > >> > >> What he is trying to say (I believe) is that it is not a good habit to > >> write nonportable code because you are too lazy to even think about > >> portability, and to try to persuade other to do so as well. The former > >> is your own problem, while the latter is not. > > Andrew> It's certainly not a good habit to write lousy code because you're too > Andrew> lazy to consider which platforms your application is going to run on, > Andrew> or to persuade other people to write lousy code because your platform > Andrew> is crippled. > > I'm not a particular fan of HP-UX, but I still don't see why the lack > of the native compiler's -O0 option would render a platform crippled.
It makes fine-grained control of compiler options somewhere between difficult and impossible. Without properly negatable options, the best you can do is cheap all-or-nothing hacks (see earlier in this thread for several examples), where the user can only deactivate all the logic in the configure script and do it by hand. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
