Well, I see the point and I am fine with that. And as I mentioned I can continue using some patches for my projects that currently use environment variables or later move to the GCC wrappers if the majority decides not to support this mode ;)
Cheers, Grigori > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Korn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 5:54 PM > To: 'Diego Novillo'; 'Hugh Leather' > Cc: 'Grigori Fursin'; 'Brendon Costa'; 'Taras Glek'; 'Basile STARYNKEVITCH'; > gcc@gcc.gnu.org; > 'Sean Callanan'; 'Cupertino Miranda'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > 'Taras Glek'; 'Mike > O'Boyle' > Subject: RE: Defining a common plugin machinery > > Diego Novillo wrote on 09 October 2008 14:27: > > > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 05:26, Hugh Leather <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> I think the env var solution is easier for people to use and > >> immediately understand. There would be nothing to stop those people who > >> don't like env vars from using the shell wrapper approach. Why not > >> allow both? > > > > Environment variables have hidden side-effects that are often hard to > > debug. It is easy to forget that you set them. > > And they presumably break ccache's determinism. > > > I also agree that we > > should not allow environment variables to control plugins. > > I think it's best if the compiler's generated output is solely determined by > the command line and the pre-processed source, so I'm with this side of the > argument. > > > cheers, > DaveK > -- > Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
