hi, On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Martin Pool <m...@sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> Try using CC='distcc g++' or add -xc++ to the compiler options. > > In general I think running > > gcc -c thing.cc > > will compile it correctly, because the filename (and then the > explicitly given language option) have higher priority than the name > you used for the compiler. Yes, with -c it always works perfectly, even if the code is C or C++. > The only exception as I recall, is if you > want a file thing.c compiled as C++ without giving an option to say > so. That's not my case. > > If distcc is run as, say > > distcc -o prog thing.o wibble.o > > how's it supposed to know you want them linked as C++, I don't know, that's why I'm asking this question :( > and if run as > > distcc -c thing.c > > how's it supposed to know you want it compiled as C++? That's not my case. [2] I thought that using distcc should be as simple as changing the compiler from gcc/g++ (both of them) to distcc, in the Makefile (aside the distcc configuration, daemon, etc). But it turned out that way won't work... your solution of using 'CC=distcc CXX="distcc g++" actually works, but this is not my ideal solution. CMake, for example, won't accept "distcc g++" as the compiler command, it only accepts one binary file/command. Maybe there should be two commands, like "distcc" and "distc++", and I would specify those commands as the new compilers. If "cc" alone can't handle every compilation, "distcc" alone shouldn't too... -- Crístian Deives dos Santos Viana [aka CD1]
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc