------- Comment #25 from skunk at iskunk dot org 2006-08-07 07:42 ------- (In reply to comment #24) > Of course you can override them on the line of the "make" command.
Right, but that's getting into mucking-with-the-build territory. (Hence my tongue-in-cheek reply to Andreas in comment #4... it's the moral equivalent of editing the makefiles. You wear the developer's hat once you do that.) All I'm concerned with is building via top-level make(1) invocations---single target, no overrides---like a good little end user. > I thought you were setting CFLAGS on the "make" line. But then your build > wouldn't have failed this early, you would probably have waited until stage2. It was Andreas who suggested doing that. I balked.... Recap: The build fails in stage 1 because libiberty was built with CFLAGS in the usual way, but stage 1 genmodes was built without, and it wants to link against libiberty, and the linker chokes on the ABI incompatibility. This inconsistency is the real bug, and it has two solutions (listed in comemnt #20), and I'd advocate resolving it in the way that brings about convention-compliant behavior (build genmodes and the rest of stage 1 with CFLAGS). Any caveats w.r.t. CFLAGS should be noted in the docs, and possibly checked in the configure script, rather than avoided by way of a gratuitously broken variable convention unique to GCC. Does all that sound good? Can we at least agree that the aforementioned inconsistency is a bug, even if the build system is too hopelessly complex to fix it, and 4.2 might not even have this issue anymore? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28515
