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

On Jan 5, 2007, at 4:53 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:

> Peter Tanski wrote:
>> On Jan 4, 2007, at 4:53 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>>
>>>   -ccflavour gcc
>>>   -ccflavour cl
>>>
>> ... So, package.conf it is; cc-flavour/ cc-flavor (accept both  
>> spellings) should be added to data BuildInfo  in  
>> Distribution.PackageDescription.
>
> I'm probably being a bit stupid (no coffee yet this morning!), but  
> I can't immediately see why a new field needs to be added to  
> BuildInfo.  Could you explain?
>
> 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
...

I don't see any immediate need add all these other compilers but that  
is the design consideration.  As an added bonus, cc-flavour in  
BuildInfo would parallel the -ccflavour command line option.

>> The basic setup for Win-GHC shouldn't take too long to complete.   
>> I  was close to done before Christmas, although I still don't  
>> know  whether to scrap MkDLL or modify it to use link.exe and .def  
>> files as  Esa suggested.  The story is in the source code, somewhere.
>
> Modifying it to use the MS tools seems like the right thing to do.   
> This isn't on the critical path, though.

So far I have been putting it down as a 'dummy' option, returning an  
error on usage.  For now I should simply leave the MkDLL code  
intact.  (I think I have asked questions similar to this about three  
times in the past year! Not again!)

Cheers,
Pete