Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:21:20 -0400 From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [RFC] pcc support for configure On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> [2012-10-15 21:12:31 -0700]: > > +# Older PCC versions don't define __PIC__ with -fPIC > > +# > > +tryflag CFLAG_TEST "-x c" > > +printf '#ifndef __PIC__\n__PIC__=0\n#endif\n' | \ > > +$CC -E $CFLAG_TEST -fPIC - | grep __PIC__ && \ > > +CFLAGS_SHARED_ALL="$CFLAGS_SHARED_ALL -D__PIC__=1" > > + > > i don't think it's worth adding such checks > > pcc is still in development and the last > release was very much broken > > when it gets more stable and widely used then > such ckecks will make sense, right now we can > just depend on the latest pcc > > even with clang we can easily say that we > only support clang+llvm >= 3.1 > (i assume the -ffreestanding bug is fixed in that) Agreed. I don't think there's a point in supporting old compiler versions except when there are possibly-compelling reasons to use them. For old GCC's, the reasons are either bloat, speed, or license issues... or just the fact that upgrading gcc is a nightmare if you don't have new packages for it. None of these apply to pcc. Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.