From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Chong Yidong Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: CC, CFLAGS, and -m32 [was Re: Pretest compilation problem] Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:00 -0500 Message-ID: <87y65bj557.fsf@stupidchicken.com> References: <878vxgjbyn.fsf@stupidchicken.com> <4D5D5AAE.2000206@cs.ucla.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1298137163 7832 80.91.229.12 (19 Feb 2011 17:39:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2011 17:39:23 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Paul Eggert Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Feb 19 18:39:18 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Pqqm5-0001tj-4C for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 18:39:17 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:54690 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pqqm4-0005tS-3z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50948 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pqqlu-0005s7-ED for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:07 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pqqlt-00077u-79 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:06 -0500 Original-Received: from vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu ([130.132.50.146]:47804) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pqqlq-00076m-P3; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:02 -0500 Original-Received: from furball ([64.134.67.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by vm-emlprdomr-05.its.yale.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p1JHcxRw024953 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:00 -0500 Original-Received: by furball (Postfix, from userid 1000) id D572E16081E; Sat, 19 Feb 2011 12:39:00 -0500 (EST) In-Reply-To: <4D5D5AAE.2000206@cs.ucla.edu> (Paul Eggert's message of "Thu, 17 Feb 2011 09:28:14 -0800") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.71 on 130.132.50.146 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 130.132.50.146 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:136228 Archived-At: Paul Eggert writes: > On 02/16/2011 07:16 PM, Glenn Morris wrote: >> I've seen this advertized elsewhere, and it's off-topic for Emacs, but >> can you explain this to me? > > It's to cater to a common usage, where one does > "configure CC='cc -m32'; [edit]; make CFLAGS=-g". > > "configure" may decide to use "-g -O2", but you may find it easier > to compile with plain -g than with -g -O2, because it's easier to debug > code that isn't optimized. > > If instead you use "configure CC=cc CFLAGS=-m32", it's more of > a pain: "configure" won't set all the CFLAGS for you, and when > you run "make" yourself you need to say "make CFLAGS='-m32 -g'". Nonetheless, there should be no downside for us to add CFLAGS to this Makefile rule, correct? If you know of any risk, let me know.