Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 18:35:52 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: freebsd-ports <freebsd-ports@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: respect CFLAGS: should I override optimizations? Message-ID: <20040601013552.GA23068@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <20040531233106.GE85902@isis.wad.cz> References: <20040531233106.GE85902@isis.wad.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jun 01, 2004 at 01:31:06AM +0200, Roman Neuhauser wrote: > I'm updating biology/migrate, the upstream Makefile.in includes >=20 > CFLAGS =3D @CFLAGS@ ... >=20 > and configure says: >=20 > case "$GCC" in > yes) CFLAGS=3D"-O3 -Wall -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fomit-frame-pointer= -fexpensive-optimizations -D$CPUTYPE" ;; > =20 > If I was to take Porter's Hang^Hdbook literally, I would change the > set (=3D) to append (+=3D) and be done with it, but is that really what > I'm expected to do? That's not the intent..usually the port should be built with *only* the optimizations specified in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, not CFLAGS overridden by the software defaults. Perhaps the porter's handbook is unclear. If you want to leave the software optimizations as an option, you could put them under WITH_OPTIMIZED_CFLAGS, which seems to have become a de facto standard. Kris --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAu914Wry0BWjoQKURAt94AJwJ62eKBwSW/caHtgnMbZbkm569BACdGRUe dwFRlQpMCkIX3ObZVz7hRnc= =hv94 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --7AUc2qLy4jB3hD7Z--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040601013552.GA23068>