Re: -pgmc/a/l default options, other ideas

On Jan 5, 2007, at 11:25 AM, Krasimir Angelov wrote:

>> > I can imagine that we might need 'cl-options' in addition to 'cc-
>> > options', though.
>>
>> If the purpose of -ccflavour is to encapsulate any number of
>> different C compilers, then it would be easier and more general to
>> add 'cc-flavour' to BuildInfo than to add, say:
>>
>> cl-options      MS CL
>> scc-options     Sun 'CC' compiler (overlaps 'cc-options')
>> xlc-options     IBM XL/C compiler
>> ...
>
> but having different fields for CL and GCC will tell to Cabal to use
> the cl-options field for Windows and cc-options for Linux. With
> cc-flavour you will force Cabal to always use CL which is unavailable
> under Linux.

I don't understand the scenario.  From what I imagined, cc-flavour  
might specify the CL or GCC (or other) compiler and would be set  
differently on different systems: this would be handled by the Cabal  
'configure' step, so the choices in the end would be

cc-flavour:	cl	Win-GHC
cc-flavour:	gcc	MinGW/CygWin
cc-flavour:	gcc	Linux, OS X, etc.
...

Does this make sense?

Cheers,
Pete