I'm still trying to figure out why everybody keeps suggesting to pass
-g. Even if autoconf does it by default (which I don't think it
should), that doesn't mean we should. As Daniel Luke demonstrated in
the "Why -O and -g in universal variants?" thread, debug information
greatly increases the size of the binary.
The other day, Elias Pipping asked me on IRC why his universal build
of gettext was half the size of the non-universal build, when it
should be the other way around. I pointed out that his non-universal
build used -g.
I'm personally in favor of passing either -O or -Os when building
universal. I would also consider setting this as the default value
for CFLAGS to prevent autoconf from using -g by default, but I don't
know if there are any projects out there that would normally add
other switches that this would override, to a detrimental effect.
On Feb 26, 2007, at 7:34 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2007-02-26 07:14:31 -0500, Salvatore Domenick Desiano wrote:
I guess it's unclear to me as well why we wouldn't follow TN2137 by
default.
This would be a good idea, but other CFLAGS options may be needed
for some ports, in particular a different optimization option. So,
it is important that CFLAGS is built in a consistent order.
IMHO, to avoid problems, MacPorts should have a default CFLAGS value,
e.g. "-O -g" (as suggested by Apple). Then there should be a command
to append options to CFLAGS before calling configure, e.g.
configure.cflags-append. The universal variant should have
configure.cflags-append \
"-isysroot /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.4u.sdk -arch i386 -arch ppc"
and the portfile could add other options if need be. Perhaps ditto
for LDFLAGS. This way, there shouldn't be any problem with overridden
CFLAGS/LDFLAGS.
--
Kevin Ballard
http://kevin.sb.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.tildesoft.com
_______________________________________________
macports-dev mailing list
macports-dev@lists.macosforge.org
http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
