On Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 12:38 PM, M.-A. Lemburg <m...@egenix.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 13:37, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyass...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 1:04 PM, Mark Dickinson <dicki...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I understand the importance of allowing AC_PROG_CC to set >>>> CFLAGS (if CFLAGS is undefined at the point of the AC_PROG_CC); can >>>> someone give an example of why this is necessary? >>> >>> Marc-Andre's argument seems to be "it's possible that AC_PROG_CC adds >>> other flags as well (it currently doesn't, but that may well change in >>> future versions of autoconf)." That seems a little weak to constrain >>> fixing actual problems today. If it ever adds more arguments, we'll >>> need to inspect them anyway to see if they're more like -g or -O2 >>> (wanted or harmful). > > Please see the discussion on the ticket for details.
Yes, I've done that. It's repeatedly asserted in that discussion that AC_PROG_CC should be allowed to initialize an otherwise empty CFLAGS, but nowhere in that discussion does it explain *why* this is desirable. What would be so bad about not allowing AC_PROG_CC to initialize CFLAGS? (E.g., by setting an otherwise empty CFLAGS to '-g' before the AC_PROG_CC invocation.) That would fix the issue of the unwanted -O2 flag that AC_PROG_CC otherwise adds. Mark _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
