I was looking in the manual to see what the default definition of
AM_CFLAGS was. It's gone. Instead, all I see is this:
AM_CFLAGS
This is the variable the Makefile.am author can use to pass in
additional C compiler flags. It is more fully documented elsewhere. In
some situations, this is not use
On 12/09/2012 05:32 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> I was looking in the manual to see what the default definition of
> AM_CFLAGS was. It's gone.
>
Can you report the definition you used to see? I think your repost is
spurious, because "git log -G AM_CFLAGS" tells me that, in the last
eight years, the o
On 09/12/2012 17:32, NightStrike wrote:
> It's not more fully documented elsewhere, though. AM_CPPFLAGS right
> about it is, however, fully documented right in this section. This
> should be fixed, since nowhere does the manual say that AM_CFLAGS is
> "-g -O2" by default.
Is it? I was confident
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 17:32, NightStrike wrote:
>> It's not more fully documented elsewhere, though. AM_CPPFLAGS right
>> about it is, however, fully documented right in this section. This
>> should be fixed, since nowhere does the manual say
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 17:32, NightStrike wrote:
>> It's not more fully documented elsewhere, though. AM_CPPFLAGS right
>> about it is, however, fully documented right in this section. This
>> should be fixed, since nowhere does the manual say t
On 09/12/2012 23:06, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Seems reasonable (otherwise a stack trace is useless). Also, it does
> not affect performance. Confer: "How does the gcc -g option affect
> performance?" http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2005-03/msg00032.html.
Correct. But in Gentoo I had to end up writin
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Diego Elio Pettenò
wrote:
> On 09/12/2012 23:06, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> Seems reasonable (otherwise a stack trace is useless). Also, it does
>> not affect performance. Confer: "How does the gcc -g option affect
>> performance?" http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2005-
On 10/12/2012 01:20, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Devil's advocate: what happens when projects start adding a Test
> configuration (in addition to Debug and Release)? In Test, things like
> private and protected are defined to public so interfaces can be
> tested and state asserted?
I haven't hit that
Hello all,
I don't know if this is the correct mailing list to ask because it's a
question that affects both autoconf (for configuration) and automake
(the order in which targets are run). I find the same problem of having
a library to support one project and the executable for that project
with a
