This is the mail archive of the binutils@sourceware.org mailing list for the binutils project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: binutils prerequisites (recent zlib version - what else?)


kevin diggs <diggskevin38@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 11:26 AM, Ian Lance Taylor <iant@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> Unrecognized --with options are ignored. ÂThe difference in the
>>
>> Ian
>>
> Why? Wouldn't it be better to tell the poor, confused user that they
> are configuring up the wrong tree? So that we can go RTFM and get the
> right option (or whine and complain if the desired functionality does
> not exist)?

It would be better in some cases, yes.  However, the gcc and binutils
trees are examples where there is a master configure script at the top
which invokes a range of sub-configure scripts below.  To make that
work, the master configure script needs to pass all --with and --enable
options to the sub-configure scripts.  If configure scripts reject
unrecognized options, then it would be necessary for every configure
script to recognize every option.  Since the sub-projects are maintained
by different groups of people, that is infeasible.

To avoid the problem there is, yes, an option: --enable-option-checking.
It's sort of pathetic to have an option for option checking, since most
people aren't going to be aware of it, but it's the best we have at the
moment.

Ian


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]