Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 09:02:02 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fumerola <billf@chc-chimes.com> To: Hidetoshi Shimokawa <simokawa@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG, cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG, ports@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/graphics/giftrans Makefile ports/graphics/mpeg2codec/patches patch-aa ports/graphics/splitmpg/patches patch-aa ports/graphics/xdl/patches patch-aa Message-ID: <Pine.HPP.3.96.990106085838.25931A-100000@hp9000.chc-chimes.com> In-Reply-To: <19990106104022O.simokawa@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Respecting system CFLAGS means ignoring application's optimization flags > completely... (we may be able to do something in ports Makefile) Yes. That is why we define CFLAGS in the first place. I wrote a couple messages ago a 5 line tidbit that Does The Right Thing for 95% of our ports that don't inherently respect CFLAGS properly. Some ports leave a hook for optimization (apache, for instance). Default, though is that we leave CFLAGS to the user. > If this is right, I will remove all optimization flags next time. ... and make it respect the system's CFLAGS - bill fumerola - billf@chc-chimes.com - BF1560 - computer horizons corp - - ph:(800) 252-2421 - bfumerol@computerhorizons.com - billf@FreeBSD.org - To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.HPP.3.96.990106085838.25931A-100000>