On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 06:55:53PM +0300, Serge wrote: > 2012/6/24 Guillem Jover wrote: > > >> Why? Just to have it autotools-compatible? If I was writing a custom > >> build system I would be thinking about using -Wp option, since that's > >> exactly why it's there for — to pass some options to the preprocessor > >> (or, being honest, I would ignore CPPFLAGS unless I use the preprocessor). > > > > That would be wrong as -Wp bypassed the compiler driver. > > Yes, that's the point! If user wanted to pass parameters to the compiler, > he would used CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS. And since he used CPPFLAGS I assume that he > wanted to pass them to the preprocessor, not compiler. So when invoking > gcc build system must prepend CPPFLAGS with -Wp. This does not match historical practice.
> BTW, it's interesting that Fedora/CentOS use -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2 > and they use it in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS. Presumably as a workaround for build systems that do not respect CPPFLAGS. [...] > > No, as per above, and there's no workaround here, just different build > > system conventions. > > Yes. There're different system conventions. But still dpkg-buildflags > should do something. Currently it sets: CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, FFLAGS, LDFLAGS > and CPPFLAGS. Why it sets just these? Why doesn't it set, for example > CMAKE_C_FLAGS, or QMAKE_CXXFLAGS instead? It's because those are the most > popular flags, right? All of them are supported by most build systems. > All of them except CPPFLAGS. [...] GNU make's implicit rules use CPPFLAGS. If other build systems or overriden rules don't use it, it's a bug. This can of course be worked around in debian/rules. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120625172135.gt2...@decadent.org.uk