On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Lubos Lunak <l.lu...@suse.cz> wrote: > I don't think it works like that. What users run is most probably what's been > build using that MSVC thingy, which doesn't understand either of the options.
there are some effort to fix that... the 'symbol server stuff' > > On Monday 05 of November 2012, Norbert Thiebaud wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 10:59 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sberg...@redhat.com> > wrote: >> > Note that what the end user runs is -O2 rather than -Os IIUC. >> >> actually that is platform and even sometime source dependent. >> which makes global level carpet bombing using CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS/LDFLAGS >> a not necessarily appealing option. > > You are probably confusing CXXFLAGS as in "the flags that are passed to the > compiler" and CXXFLAGS that are passed to gbuild, which is not the same. an how exactly the external library are supposes to make the difference when it found it in the env ? (yeah, I, and I bet most peopel would not want to be bothered retyping the C[XX]FLAGS every time.. so export them) > See? It's not so simple. yeah, and that is why I prefer to not have to deal with the intricacy of it... that is what --enable-symbol is meant to provide: you get what you ask, even if you are not ware of how hard it is... sure it is possible that --enable-symbol is borked and does not do the 'right thing'... but that is even more reason to be suspicious of the ability of everyone to get it right manually, when a bunch of smart people together can't get it right once. In the end I still miss the answer to the question: what is the gain of removing --enable-symbol ? and if C[XX]FLAGS is the 'proper' and 'easy' way to do it.. then why do we have --enable-debug ? _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
