Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 11:29:57 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> To: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Overriding compiler flags (Re: cvs commit: src/contrib/gcc.295 gcc.c) Message-ID: <200106011829.f51ITve29452@vashon.polstra.com> In-Reply-To: <20010530135408.A3587@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0105302323390.18042-100000@besplex.bde.org> <20010530163906.27321380E@overcee.netplex.com.au> <20010530135408.A3587@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In article <20010530135408.A3587@dragon.nuxi.com>, David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 09:39:06AM -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: > > Maybe we should install /usr/libdata/gcc/specs.default or something? I have > > found using the specs file *very* useful in the past when working on > > toolchain issues. > > I personally don't want to install any specs. I want to keep things > deterministic. When Peter uses specs I can be assured that any bug > reports or "something is wrong" emails were tested with the stock case, > or clearly identified as not being stock. I cannot depend on this from > all users. I like Peter's idea. It would be handy to have a template specs file for those who know what they're doing. There are many ways users can make their systems "not stock". I can't see that putting an unused specs template in /usr/libdata/gcc is going to make that any worse. Users can still build strange specs files whether or not we install an unused template. Personally, I'd rather have them start from a known-good template if they're going to mess with the specs. John -- John Polstra jdp@polstra.com John D. Polstra & Co., Inc. Seattle, Washington USA "Disappointment is a good sign of basic intelligence." -- Chögyam Trungpa To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200106011829.f51ITve29452>