On 2/28/2012 16:08, Chuck Burns wrote: > On 2/28/2012 4:55 PM, Ade Lovett wrote: >> On 2/28/2012 14:11, Alexander Best wrote: >>> any chance we can have a CFLAGS.gcc and CFLAGS.clang in the future? >>> that would >>> make certain things a lot easier. dealing with gcc specific options, >>> such as >>> -mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 would simply work by setting >>> CFLAGS.gcc=-mpreferred-stack-boundary=2 e.g. >> >> You already can: >> >> CFLAGS.cc= cc_cflags_here >> CFLAGS.clang= clang_cflags_here >> >> CFLAGS+= generic_cflags_here >> CFLAGS+= ${CFLAGS.${CC}} >> >> >> -aDe > > I think was asking for adding a third... > .cc for base gcc > .clang for .. clang...... > and .gcc for ports gcc4x > .. > > At least, thats how I read it, I could be wrong, it's happened before. CFLAGS.gcc46= <foo> CFLAGS.gcc47= <bar> ... it's entirely extensible. -aDeReceived on Tue Feb 28 2012 - 23:22:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:24 UTC