From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 119098 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2020 18:23:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 119084 invoked by uid 89); 16 Jan 2020 18:23:44 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_SHORT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: us-smtp-1.mimecast.com Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (HELO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com) (205.139.110.120) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:23:33 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579199011; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=s2x9z3nAfBTAaCgbZQ6gc3WkDw2NZd/fFO80dYPyLu4=; b=CEs9JkYs6MHUH4F1W1f3gKhfpM3TroNWIKGGSO1I0B5s6p/1rRgZ/KEo967v0Wmi8QeF4C J0tk6jpvEfNQLmtaTOXlvnhZ+RVkXBltfcw2SgjWeB71Rz1ph+DURJEnEhxjQ0C6jT5zJU C9BItQpWPLpB3ZbvQSF9KH4InlERtYU= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-184-7ys-wMnwOseXLRo7WxSTzQ-1; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 13:23:28 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id g26so744280wmk.6 for ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:23:28 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:56ee:75ff:fe8d:232b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v8sm29177948wrw.2.2020.01.16.10.23.25 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:23:26 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] Move gdbsupport to top level To: Christian Biesinger References: <20200109005807.7314-1-tom@tromey.com> <8a8de6a9-37b8-cad3-c818-be903037fe48@redhat.com> <437c1b86-0aa8-57b9-53e2-f21567e2bb14@redhat.com> <87c733a2-2b25-a954-88a1-9bfb1a7eca12@redhat.com> <4fed38dc-aaa7-b76b-880f-bab0b1b5add2@redhat.com> <09d7b39d-982d-d68b-a3c7-651616778bd5@redhat.com> <585a0731-74a2-7712-bb4f-8c69fdcecaf5@redhat.com> Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <14ba3eb4-c469-c4af-e497-02b6636613a7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 18:28:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.2.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2020-01/txt/msg00461.txt.bz2 On 1/16/20 5:38 PM, Christian Biesinger wrote: > On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:23 AM Pedro Alves 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) > 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. Thanks, Pedro Alves