[CMake] Determining good GCC parameters

Brandon J. Van Every bvanevery at gmail.com
Tue Aug 22 18:00:42 EDT 2006


Antti S. Lankila wrote:
>
> I agree generic build is not very intuitive concept. I meant by 
> generic build a set of GCC options that produce code that runs on wide 
> set of architectures. This would be of interest to distributors of 
> software in general, who want their software to run on, say, any 
> Pentium-3 CPU or Athlon Duron or better. The contrast was native 
> build, which is code optimised for the host architecture the build was 
> performed on.
>
> I think the place for this type of decisions is the build system. 
> There is already build types for "release" vs. "debug", which I find 
> conceptually similar, so I thought extending that concept would be 
> good idea...

I think the "release" vs. "debug" etc. currently only have meaning for 
MSVC.  So, they aren't generic concepts, they're specific MSVC support.  
I think for generic GCC on many architectures, all you want is -O2.  Not 
much reason to build extra nomenclature for that.  I think the FSF 
typically does "-g -O2" and many people find the -g annoying, they don't 
want gratuitous debug code by default.  FSF is pushing an agenda to get 
bug reports back from people.


Cheers,
Brandon Van Every



More information about the CMake mailing list