[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: AVR-libc-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 13

From: Bradley Jarvis
Subject: Re: [avr-libc-dev] Re: AVR-libc-dev Digest, Vol 99, Issue 13
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 09:19:00 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv: Gecko/20110114 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7

On 02/18/11 04:01, address@hidden wrote:
> No, please *don't* use the name CPPFLAGS when referring to C++.
> CPP as a synonym for C++ might have some tradition in Microsoft-land,
> but our tools are Unix-like, and CPP always referred to the C
> preprocessor there, so CPPFLAGS are flags to apply when running the C
> preprocessor alone (i.e. all the -I, -D and -U options that would
> otherwise go into CFLAGS).
> The correct spelling for C++ flags in a Makefile is CXXFLAGS, and the
> C++ compiler is hold in the variable CXX.
Hehe, yes while making the patch I realised that CPP referred to the
pre-processor (many years ago when I started programming in C++ I used
Borland 3.1 and I guess it come from that, it was a blessing when I
found DJGPP and could simply ignore the memory boundaries).

The patch that I submitted do not touch the CPPFLAGS but i have added

With regard to patch's I have submitted another one and just wondering
what the process for getting patches applied to the source?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]