Re: Call for port reports

Larry Rosenman wrote:
> >> After further consideration, I think that the recent patch series that
> >> tried to centralize the CFLAGS handling in configure should be reverted
> >> to configure.in revision 1.293. Otherwise, it's much to complicated to
> >> handle all the special cases. There is, after all, a reason we have been
> >> forced to keep it this way all these years.
> >
> > Remember the old code had CFLAGS="" in lots of platforms, meaning they
> > got no optimization.
> >
> > It seems right now Alpha is our only problem, and it is really just a
> > message problem because the later flags override the earlier ones. Why
> > can't get just remove -O2 from the alpha CFLAGS line via makefile magic?
> > Frankly, we could just do CFLAGS="-O" and be done with it because we
> > would not be bringing in the -O2, but I would rather keep it clean and
> > remove just -O2.
> We also get -g on UnixWare cc (NOT gcc) builds, which we didn't before,
> which means we do NOT get optimization (UnixWare's cc doesn't like
> -O and -g together).

We are going to fix that, but what happens? Does the compile fail or
does optimization just get turned off?

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073