From: "Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches" <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: Tom Tromey <tom@tromey.com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Move gdbsupport to top level
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 19:21:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPTJ0XEJ4y5t_RC3eSNUkV+qkro0fe5cd5ox_mQ+frS7q3qecg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <14ba3eb4-c469-c4af-e497-02b6636613a7@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 1:23 PM Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 1/16/20 5:38 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:23 AM Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> For that patch, why not just use AM_CFLAGS/AM_CXXFLAGS?
> >>
> >> I was mainly following what GDB does, with:
> >>
> >> COMPILE.pre = $(CXX) -x c++ $(CXX_DIALECT)
> >>
> >> I guess I was the one who did that, so that's not going to be
> >> a strong explanation. :-)
> >>
> >> It's just that I feel like the compiler mode is more about
> >> picking a different compiler than about picking some flags
> >> like warnings flags or compilation levels. I think that
> >> in practice the only difference is that you see the
> >> -std=gnu++11 next to the compiler command:
> >>
> >> $ rm -f selftest.o && make V=1 selftest.o
> >> /opt/gcc-4.8/bin/g++ -std=gnu++11 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/config.h -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../include -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../gdb -I../gnulib/import -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../gnulib/import -I.. -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/.. -I../bfd -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../bfd -g3 -O0 -MT selftest.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/selftest.Tpo -c -o selftest.o /home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/selftest.c
> >> mv -f .deps/selftest.Tpo .deps/selftest.Po
> >>
> >> vs, with AM_CFLAGS:
> >>
> >> $ rm -f selftest.o && make V=1 selftest.o
> >> /opt/gcc-4.8/bin/g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/config.h -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../include -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../gdb -I../gnulib/import -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../gnulib/import -I.. -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/.. -I../bfd -I/home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/../bfd -std=gnu++11 -g3 -O0 -MT selftest.o -MD -MP -MF .deps/selftest.Tpo -c -o selftest.o /home/pedro/gdb/binutils-gdb/src/gdbsupport/selftest.c
> >> mv -f .deps/selftest.Tpo .deps/selftest.Po
> >>
> >> AFAICT, overriding CXXFLAGS or CXX in the make invocation works
> >> the same in either case.
> >
> > How so? override is documented to override commandline variables?
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/make/manual/html_node/Override-Directive.html#Override-Directive
> >
>
> Because it is defined in terms of CXX, which gets filled with whatever
> was specified on the command line, I believe:
>
> override CXX := $(CXX) $(CXX_DIALECT)
>
> I guess I should write instead:
>
> override CXX += $(CXX_DIALECT)
Oh, yeah, good point. Either way is fine with me.
> > But yes, that's what I was thinking of, and just in general that
> > override seems a bit ugly.
>
> Other than aesthetic reasons, do you see an issue? I like seeing
> the -std=gnu++11 at the left side of the command invocation,
> basically for quick diagnostics, but that's about my only reason
> for preferring it.
Yeah since the overriding still works, I'm fine with this.
Christian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-16 18:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-09 0:58 Tom Tromey
2020-01-09 0:58 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] Don't link gdb twice against libiberty Tom Tromey
2020-01-09 0:58 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] Remove use of <config.h> from gdb/nat/ Tom Tromey
2020-01-09 0:58 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] Add gdbsupport check-defines script Tom Tromey
2020-01-09 0:58 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] Consolidate definition of USE_WIN32API Tom Tromey
2020-01-11 16:58 ` [PATCH v2 0/6] Move gdbsupport to top level Tom Tromey
2020-01-12 2:48 ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-14 23:25 ` Tom Tromey
2020-01-15 0:36 ` Tom Tromey
2020-01-15 21:27 ` Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches
2020-01-17 18:02 ` Tom Tromey
2020-01-15 14:30 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-15 14:56 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-15 16:07 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-15 20:37 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-15 21:46 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-15 22:12 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-16 0:48 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-16 2:57 ` Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches
2020-01-16 17:22 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-16 18:01 ` Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches
2020-01-16 18:28 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-16 19:21 ` Christian Biesinger via gdb-patches [this message]
2020-01-16 9:02 ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-16 15:24 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-17 12:20 ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-17 13:37 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-17 14:40 ` Simon Marchi
2020-01-17 15:32 ` Pedro Alves
2020-01-17 18:13 ` Tom Tromey
2020-01-16 4:23 ` Simon Marchi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAPTJ0XEJ4y5t_RC3eSNUkV+qkro0fe5cd5ox_mQ+frS7q3qecg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=cbiesinger@google.com \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=tom@tromey.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).