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

On Jan 9, 2007, at 4:08 AM, Simon Marlow wrote:
> Peter Tanski wrote:
>> You're right.  As a build system, Cabal shouldn't need a cc- 
>> flavour:  it should "guess" what platform it is on and use that  
>> (many other  build systems do exactly that).  I still find the  
>> combination of cc- options and cl-options without cc-flavour  
>> somewhat confusing since as  a normative matter if GHC supports - 
>> cc-flavour shouldn't Cabal?  I  should let the point rest until I  
>> have hashed out some real  alternatives in code and see how they  
>> work.
>
> Why does Cabal even need to know about ccflavour?  The only reason  
> we proposed that GHC had a -ccflavour option is because you can  
> change the C compiler, so presumably you might change the C  
> compiler from gcc to CL. ... I think it's reasonable to hardwire  
> the C compiler command-line syntax based on the target platform.   
> i.e. no -ccflavour option.

Agreed: with hardwired C compiler commands in ghc Cabal ccFlavour  
would not make sense.  The -ccflavour option itself is also not  
necessary for the Windows port because that port will only support  
cl, not gcc, and other ghc versions will support gcc, not cl.  As a  
future reference, double-compiler support would be necessary for  
adding cross-compiler capabilities to ghc.

Cheers,
Pete