On 29 Nov, Jim Jagielski wrote: > I'm just concerned about the CXXFLAGS interaction > > The proposed patch breaks how I expect many people > are building AOO and it's a regression that, unless > we are super clear about it, would bite a lot of > people.
How many people set CXXFLAGS in the environment? Another way to do this is to change the gb_LinkTarget_set_*_optimization functions to override CXXFLAGS, etc. instead of gb_COMPILEROPTFLAGS. That would basically return us to the status quo where the usual way of doing per-target overrides to this point has been: # Work around bug in gcc 4.2 / 4.3, see # http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=35182 ifeq ($(COM),GCC) $(eval $(call gb_Library_add_cxxobjects,sc,\ sc/source/ui/unoobj/chart2uno \ , $(gb_COMPILERNOOPTFLAGS) $(gb_LinkTarget_EXCEPTIONFLAGS) \ )) else $(eval $(call gb_Library_add_exception_objects,sc,\ sc/source/ui/unoobj/chart2uno \ )) endif which manages to lose the debug flags. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
