Antti S. Lankila wrote:
I agree generic build is not very intuitive concept. I meant by
generic build a set of GCC options that produce code that runs on wide
set of architectures. This would be of interest to distributors of
software in general, who want their software to run on, say, any
Pentium-3 CPU or Athlon Duron or better. The contrast was native
build, which is code optimised for the host architecture the build was
performed on.
I think the place for this type of decisions is the build system.
There is already build types for "release" vs. "debug", which I find
conceptually similar, so I thought extending that concept would be
good idea...
I think the "release" vs. "debug" etc. currently only have meaning for
MSVC. So, they aren't generic concepts, they're specific MSVC support.
I think for generic GCC on many architectures, all you want is -O2. Not
much reason to build extra nomenclature for that. I think the FSF
typically does "-g -O2" and many people find the -g annoying, they don't
want gratuitous debug code by default. FSF is pushing an agenda to get
bug reports back from people.
Cheers,
Brandon Van Every
_______________________________________________
CMake mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake
