Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from May 2012
On Sat, May 05, 2012 at 10:31:45AM +0200, H.Merijn Brand wrote: > Wow, what dig-work. Thanks. > This is indeed insane. It probably only #fail this way on PA-RISC, as > the itanium boxes seem to accept these. I do not expect HP to come with > a fix, as PA-RISC is kinda abandoned. I could try to contact them. If it's in support, please do contact them. I'd hope that they'd agree that it's a bug, even if they don't want to fix it. > Shall I alter the hints to drop +O when -g is in place? I guess so. Although it sort of feels more like fixing the symptoms than the problem. In that I think also Configure should have validated the combined compiler flags it created worked (which probably isn't that hard to add) and then (at least) bailed out (easy). But ideally it would have gone "oh, I can't add -g" or "I can add -g but I'll have to ignore optimize", because I'm quite surprised that any compiler other than gcc is happy with -O and -g. But that's harder. IIRC the "old style" way of things was that -DDEBUGGING was added if "optimize" contained -g, so there wasn't this problem. There *was* the problem that people (rightly) didn't expect the slowdown from -DDEBUGGING if all they wanted to do was add C level debugging symbols. Nicholas ClarkThread Previous | Thread Next