From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15906 invoked from network); 8 Jun 1999 09:19:22 -0000 Received: from sunsite.auc.dk (130.225.51.30) by ns1.primenet.com.au with SMTP; 8 Jun 1999 09:19:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 16693 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 1999 09:19:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@sunsite.auc.dk; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes X-Seq: 6518 Received: (qmail 16686 invoked from network); 8 Jun 1999 09:19:09 -0000 Message-Id: <9906080850.AA22875@ibmth.df.unipi.it> To: "Zsh hackers list" Subject: Re: LFS and explicit LIBS RE: pws-21 In-Reply-To: ""Andrej Borsenkow""'s message of "Tue, 08 Jun 1999 13:00:02 DFT." <000501beb18d$4b51cdf0$21c9ca95@mow.siemens.ru> Date: Tue, 08 Jun 1999 10:50:33 +0200 From: Peter Stephenson "Andrej Borsenkow" wrote: > Now, that I finally got a debugger for my system (DBX), I decided to > compile Zsh with debugging. To fully utilize DBX it is very advisable to > link -lg into executable. Unfortunately, doing so disables LFS :-( It's just an automated test for the unsophisticated. Once you know what the flags are, you can get exactly the same effect by adding them directly to CFLAGS, just so long as you specify --enable-lfs so that all the tests for sizes of integers are turned on. I do this all the time (the default --zsh-debug flags don't include -O which I always add). > May be, for items, that are empty (LFS_CFLAGS, LFS_LDFLAGS etc) we > should not disable LFS? Yes, that's a possibility. -- Peter Stephenson Tel: +39 050 844536 WWW: http://www.ifh.de/~pws/ Dipartimento di Fisica, Via Buonarroti 2, 56127 Pisa, Italy