On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 08:59:35AM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote:
On 06-06-2008 08:49:45 +0200, Niels Nes wrote:
On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 08:28:10AM +0200, Stefan Manegold wrote: [...]
Would it be possible to do this check based on the existence of a .CVS directory?
Would be. However, then it only detects cvs checkouts, but not cvs exports. I just used the same test that we already use to detect whether we need code generation tools (flex, bison, etc.), or not. I'll discuss with Sjoerd. [...]
Open question: shall we only do this on the release branch and keep "--enable-strict" as default in all cases in the development trunk, or shall we apply the same strategy o the development trunk, too?
Same strategy sounds good for the development trunk too. There the users of the tar.balls also may have other platforms.
Good. Less diff between Stable & Current make thinks even simpler.
It would make sense to me if the nightly tarballs, which include the superballs all compile with strict, optimize and assert being *disabled* by default, for a sane code distribution.
Please note that for some compiler issues to catch, one has to use -O2 (--enable optimize?), however doing that makes the binary hard to debug, which results in a natural inconvenience here...
Even without --enable-optimize the configure default (not our choice, but that of the makers of configure!) (at least for gcc, not the most rare compiler) is "-g -O2", hence, the default does not omit "-O2". Moreover, there is the issue of performance experiments/comparisons in case the default is not --enable-optimize . Let try to make a final decision "life" during MADAM on Monday. Stefan -- | Dr. Stefan Manegold | mailto:Stefan.Manegold@cwi.nl | | CWI, P.O.Box 94079 | http://www.cwi.nl/~manegold/ | | 1090 GB Amsterdam | Tel.: +31 (20) 592-4212 | | The Netherlands | Fax : +31 (20) 592-4312 |