From xemacs-m  Tue May 27 20:04:53 1997
Received: from mercury.Sun.COM (mercury.Sun.COM [192.9.25.1])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id UAA19422
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 27 May 1997 20:04:52 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from Eng.Sun.COM ([129.146.1.25]) by mercury.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/mail.byaddr) with SMTP id SAA25040; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:21:03 -0700
Received: from kindra.eng.sun.com by Eng.Sun.COM (SMI-8.6/SMI-5.3)
	id SAA03046; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:03:54 -0700
Received: from xemacs.eng.sun.com by kindra.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA27823; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:03:50 -0700
Received: by xemacs.eng.sun.com (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id SAA12912; Tue, 27 May 1997 18:03:57 -0700
Date: Tue, 27 May 1997 18:03:57 -0700
Message-Id: <199705280103.SAA12912@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
To: N J Doye <nic@niss.ac.uk>
Cc: georgn@canada.Sun.COM, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: Re: 20.3-b2 fails configure Sol2.5+cc
In-Reply-To: <199705251359.NAA09429@niss.ac.uk>
References: <199705231428.OAA11452@niss.ac.uk>
	<199705231756.NAA00700@verve.canada.sun.com>
	<199705251359.NAA09429@niss.ac.uk>
X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under 20.3 XEmacs Lucid (beta1)
Reply-To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>

>>>>> "N" == N J Doye <nic@niss.ac.uk> writes:

N> And from reading Georg's next message (Subject: FYI) I found that
N> adding --compiler=cc really fixed the problem. Is there a good reason
N> for the default non-gcc compiler (on solaris) to be 'cc -g -O2' when
N> (for me, at least) this doen't work? Is it because some people don't
N> use the cool Sun Pro compiler?

configure needs to be cleverer about compiler flags.  Various compiler 
vendors no longer support "-O2" because that syntax is not POSIX
compliant (ambiguous)

"-O2" should be equivalent to "-O" "2" , which might be construed to
mean optimize + link with a file named "2".  Thus did Sun adopt
"-xO2".  I think IBM did something similar.

N> Also why does it check if gcc works, when I've specified not to use
N> it? 

"cc" might really be gcc in disguise (or a shell script front-end to gcc).

"-with-gcc" is an option that should really be deprecated.  Specifying 
compiler and cflags via command line switches or environment
variables is the way to go.

Martin

