[DotGNU]write a GCC->aCC wrapper! (was Re: hpux issues)

[S11001001]

James Mc Parlane wrote:
> I have managed to get past this. This code looks like it is only used to
> generate dynamic dependencies, so even though the make process squeals like
> a pig,I managed to get treecc to compile only by modifying
> treecc/configure.in so that instead of
>
> AC_PROG_CC
> AC_PROG_CXX
>
> it reads
>
> AC_PROG_CC(aCC gcc cc)
> AC_PROG_CXX(aCC gcc cc)

Another, perhaps more elegant solution would be to write a wrapper 
around aCC that behaved like gcc.

> Happy with this I moved onto building pnet, made the same change started
> making and came a cropper with /pnet/support/gen_errno.sh 
>
> When compiling with gcc I get the following line in the Makefile
>
> /bin/sh gen_errno.sh ../include/il_errno.h gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.
> -I../include    -I../libgc/include -g -O2 -Wall > errno_map.c
>
> which works..
>
> When compiling with aCC I get the following line in the Makefile
>
> /bin/sh gen_errno.sh ../include/il_errno.h aCC -Ae -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.
> -I../include    -I../libgc/include -g >errno_map.c
> aCC: warning 901: unknown option: `-': use +help for online documentation. 

I believe the gcc wrapper would solve this problem as well.

> Which does not. At this point I went to bed.
>
> So I'm just wondering. Is the pnet build going to be limited just to gcc?

Even if it is, does that really hurt, given this idea?

--
Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://www.dotgnu.org

I think that freedom is more important than mere technical advance. I
would always choose a less advanced free program rather than a more
advanced nonfree program, because I won't give up my freedom for
something like that. My rule is, if I can't share it with you, I won't
take it.
        -- RMS