Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [[e-mail]: Re: [gentoo-core] new USE flag proposal: ccc]

[Martin Schlemmer]

On Sun, 2003-04-27 at 18:01, Aron Griffis wrote:

hiya

>
> 1. Maybe the icc ebuild should install wrapper scripts for the icc-CHOST
>    form so that it can be used in distcc/cross-compiling.  Also the ccc
>    ebuild should do the same.  In fact, it could be a single script with
>    multiple symlinks, then setup flags in the script based on name...
>    Does this make sense?
>

Could work.

> 2. I think that your PREFERRED_COMPILERS scheme makes sense except that
>    it requires the compiler to be a single word.  Now sure, one could
>    argue that CC should always be a single word, but people have done
>    successful setups with CC="distcc gcc" so I don't think we should
>    break that if possible.
>

AFAIK, distcc, ccache, and colorgcc was all fixed (if applicable) to
work transparent, so this should not be a problem.

> I think that it is worthwhile to try to find a good solution to this.
> Hopefully we can find one that is elegant enough so that not too much
> complexity is added, and it's intuitive for people to use.  Right now
> it's a high goal for the alpha team to make ccc a reality, but it cannot
> happen unless ccc is automatically selected for the ebuilds on which it
> applies.  It's not reasonable to make users run "CC=ccc emerge" to be
> able to take advantage of ccc.
>

Right, I understand this.


> Azarah wrote:	[Sat Apr 26 2003, 03:21:51PM EDT]
> > On Fri, 2003-04-25 at 04:36, Aron Griffis wrote:
> >
> > > Azarah wrote:[Tue Apr 22 2003, 02:57:11PM EDT]
> > > > In theory you should be able to just set CC .... The builds that
> > > > do not take this, should be fixed IMHO.
> > >
> > > Sure, you can set
> > >
> > >     CC=ccc emerge blah
> > >
> > > and it should work.  But what we're talking about is setting something
> > > so that ebuilds that support ccc will use it, automatically falling back
> > > to gcc when the ebuild doesn't support ccc.  That's why it seemed like a
> > > USE flag would be appropriate.
> > >
> > > The problem I can see with a USE flag is that we'd have to clobber CC
> > > in the ebuild, for example "use ccc && CC=ccc".  So then the user
> > > wouldn't have an easy way to override.
> > >
> > > So we come back to compiler profiles.  But I don't quite understand how
> > > they'll solve this problem.  I don't want to set CC=ccc globally.  I
> > > want the ebuilds to know whether they support ccc, and the user can say,
> > > "hey, use ccc if you can, otherwise use gcc".
> > >
> >
> > Right.  I do not want to stop change if its for the good, but we should
> > also sometimes consider if some complexity is really worth it.  This I
> > think IMHO that if we can do it without adding too much complexity,
> > sure.
> >
> > Maybe it could be with something like:
> >
> > COMPILERS="gcc ccc"
> >
> > In the ebuild, that say this puppy support both, and then we can have
> > something like:
> >
> > PREFERRED_COMPILERS="ccc gcc"
> >
> > in make.conf .... portage will then set CC to the compiler from
> > PREFERRED_COMPILERS in the order they appear if the ebuild have
> > that one in COMPILERS.
> >
> > A slight snag that comes into ... this could really cause issues with
> > distcc/cross-compiling especially if you need the <compiler-front>-CHOST
> > type of thing (mostly with distcc when you have diff arch's in the
> > cluster).  For example icc do not support the icc-CHOST form, so how
> > again we will have to hack portage to disable distcc if icc is used,
> > etc.
> >
> > So this brings me back to my original comment that we should maybe
> > consider if this wont add to much complexity and/or hassles.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> >
> > Martin Schlemmer
> > Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
> > Cape Town, South Africa
> >
> >
-- 

Martin Schlemmer
Gentoo Linux Developer, Desktop/System Team Developer
Cape Town, South Africa