At 01:33 PM 1/4/2002 -0800, Jason Diamond wrote:
> > Okay, I just added a separate link options question and associated
>makefile
> > twiddlings to configure.pl. Any link-specific options you need can now go
> > there, or get jammed into $c{ldflags} if you need platform-specific bits.
>
>Having the $c{ldflags} appear in compiletestc is showing warnings on Win32
>since the linker flags mean nothing to the compiler. I'm assuming that's not
>the case with gcc.
GCC plays the role of both compiler and linker. (Well, it compiles and
invokes ld under the hood, but it's all in one step) It can definitely
handle linker flags.
>It doesn't seem to have any adverse affect for now (aside
>from the ugly warning messages) but there is a chance that some linker
>option can mean something entirely different to the compiler in the future.
>Would this be a good reason to override compiletestc in hints/mswin32.pl?
Absolutely. I was surprised that all the Win32 C compilers would do the
single-step compile and link thing, honestly.
>Looking at hints/vms.pl, I see that it overrode compiletestc so that it can
>compile and link in two seperate steps. Could we do that for all platforms
>in order to avoid overriding and duplicating code?
We certainly could, though I'm not sure how much work it's worth, given
that at the moment it's just VMS and Win32 that do this.
On the other hand, patches are definitely welcome. :)
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
