[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Disabling optimization
From: |
Stepan Kasal |
Subject: |
Re: Disabling optimization |
Date: |
Thu, 18 Nov 2004 14:04:01 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
Hello,
> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 11:55 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> > Stepan Kasal <address@hidden> writes:
> > > if test -n "${CXXFLAGS}"; then
> > > CXXFLAGS="-g"
> > > fi
> > > AC_PROG_CXX
> >
> > I think you got it backwards. This makes it impossible to override
> > CXXFLAGS.
yes, I meant ``test -z'', sorry.
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 12:41:37PM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Isn't the snippet below sufficient?
> CXXFLAGS=${CXXFLAGS--g}
> AC_PROG_CXX
or
: ${CXXFLAGS="-g"}
AC_PROG_CXX
But my question was whether there was a reason for setting the variable
_after_ AC_PROG_CXX, as the original suggestion proposed.
Thanks,
Stepan Kasal
- Re: Disabling optimization, (continued)
- Re: Disabling optimization, jfasch, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Andrew Suffield, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, jfasch, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Andrew Suffield, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Thomas Dickey, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Andrew Suffield, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/11/19
- Re: Disabling optimization,
Stepan Kasal <=
- Re: Disabling optimization, Braden McDaniel, 2004/11/18