From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/2111 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [RFC] pcc support for configure Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 09:21:20 -0400 Message-ID: <20121016132120.GR254@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20121015211231.08cbd071.idunham@lavabit.com> <20121016101743.GM24157@port70.net> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1350394206 21847 80.91.229.3 (16 Oct 2012 13:30:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:30:06 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-2112-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Tue Oct 16 15:30:13 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1TO7Dm-0003ID-9o for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 16 Oct 2012 15:30:10 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 32308 invoked by uid 550); 16 Oct 2012 13:30:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 32294 invoked from network); 16 Oct 2012 13:30:02 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20121016101743.GM24157@port70.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:2111 Archived-At: On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:17:43PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > * Isaac Dunham [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