Support for different compilers (original) (raw)
Magnus Ihse Bursie magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com
Tue Feb 4 09:22:15 UTC 2014
- Previous message (by thread): Support for different compilers
- Next message (by thread): Support for different compilers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 2014-02-04 04:49, Martin Buchholz wrote:
I'll concede that when determining default compiler flags, those are highly dependent on something like a "compiler family" and cannot be done in the C/C++ sources themselves. But even then, for many of the compiler flags there should be feature based autoconf tests instead of relying on guessing based on compiler family, e.g. does -Wl,-rpath work?
I object strongly to this. From time to time, "feature based tests" is popped into the discussion. While it might sound good in theory, let's look at what that actually mean in practice.
Let's take your example, "does -Wl,-rpath work?" What do you mean by "work"?
- That the compiler accept the argument without failing? Sure, that's not so hard to test, but what does it tell you?
- That it produces output with certain characterstics? How do you determine if that is the case? Analyze the resulting binary with a tool? Does that tool work properly? How do you test that, if you don't trust anything? Otherwise you're just shifting your assumption from how the compiler works to how the tool works.
And the complexity! Let's go real life. Look at the value of $SET_SHARED_LIBRARY_ORIGIN. It's ... for gcc on macosx: '-Xlinker -rpath -Xlinker @loader_path/.' for gcc on linux: '-Xlinker -z -Xlinker origin -Xlinker -rpath -Xlinker $$$$ORIGIN[$]1' for oracle solaris studio: '-R$$$$ORIGIN[$]1'
Now, how would you go along to arrive at that by feature based testing? I can't even start to imagine.
Secondly, we do have some "feature based tests". But I'd rather get rid of them, because they behave (and typically are) more like workarounds. Look at this code, for instance.
Check for broken SuSE 'ld' for which 'Only anonymous version tag is
allowed in executable.' USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=no if test "x$OPENJDK_TARGET_OS" = xlinux && test "x$GCC" = xyes; then AC_MSG_CHECKING([for broken SuSE 'ld' which only understands anonymous version tags in executables]) echo "SUNWprivate_1.1 { local: *; };" > version-script.map echo "int main() { }" > main.c if $CXX -Xlinker -version-script=version-script.map main.c 2>&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD >&AS_MESSAGE_LOG_FD; then AC_MSG_RESULT(no) USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=no else AC_MSG_RESULT(yes) USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD=yes fi rm -rf version-script.map main.c fi AC_SUBST(USING_BROKEN_SUSE_LD)
It's probably a very good example of what feature based tests would look like. I'd be horrified if we were do that for all flags. The build system would blow up tenfold in size and complexity, for no or little gain.
/Magnus
- Previous message (by thread): Support for different compilers
- Next message (by thread): Support for different compilers
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]