[distcc] Re: implicit compiler name

Dimitri PAPADOPOULOS-ORFANOS papadopo at shfj.cea.fr
Mon Sep 16 09:05:59 GMT 2002

> > Another approach, although not so general, would be to have both
> > DISTCC_CC and DISTCC_CXX, and use one or the other depending on
> > whether C or C++ code is being compiled.
> This would be tricky.  How would you tell, given that foo.c is
> allowed to be a C++ source file as long as you compile it using g++?

Yes, that's exactly the point.

> /me thinks it would be best to install distCC or distcxx in addition
> to distcc, such that distcxx would run g++ and distcc would run gcc.
> But I dislike this solution too...  I'd much rather just say `distcc
> gcc' and be done with it.

Indeed, there's absolutely no need to use "distCC" when there's
"distcc g++".

This is why I had suggested the symlink trick.

The primary use of distcc would still be:
	distcc g++ ...

Then there would still be the option of letting distcc run the
compiler the name of which is given by the symlink. This way
you don't have to modify Makefiles and you can easily switch
between a GNU compiler and a native compiler:
	CC  -> distcc CC
	g++ -> distcc g++


More information about the distcc mailing list