> On Fri, Mar 22, 2002 at 09:37:53PM -0500, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >to add "cpparg" to the compiler arguments? Is that because you need a > >way to transparently pass compiler arguments, and the C in -C can > >stand for compiler??? > > Yes, this is what Pete is after. Perhaps he thought -C was the > relevant option because of 'C for compiler', and because Setup.dist > says "<cpparg> is anything starting with -I, -D, -U or -C" in a > comment, which can be taken to imply that -C takes an argument (the > other three options all do). I think -C is not a good choice, since it *does* represent a cc option with a long history, even if it's not particularly useful. (Amazingly, compilations with -C mostly just work -- the backend parser has its own comment stripper, which normally isn't used because it's more efficient to strip them in the preprocessor. At least that's what I remember from aeons ago.) > Why is -C in makesetup at all? Probably just because it was one of the 4 CPP options I knew when I wrote makesetup 1.1. I don't expect anybody has ever used it. > It only seems relevant when also used with -E, and makesetup will > add -E to the link line, not the compile line. But that doesn't make sense, because makesetup is creating Make rules that create .o files (and .so files, after *shared*), and -E doesn't create a .o file. I think the inclusion of -E in the linker options is merely an artefact from the rule that passes most uppercase options to the linker (the case -[A-Zl]* appeared in rev. 1.5, in 1994). All this is hopelessly heuristic and has lots of gray areas where it's unclear what was intended. > Anyway, looking at makesetup, there's no way to add arbitrary switches > for the C compiler. Maybe add -Xcompiler, by analogy with -Xlinker? Sounds good. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4