[distcc] distcc & glibc-2.2.5 & gcc-3.2

Martin Pool mbp at sourcefrog.net
Fri Oct 11 04:58:01 GMT 2002

On 10 Oct 2002, Alexandre Oliva <oliva at lsd.ic.unicamp.br> wrote:
> On Oct 10, 2002, Martin Pool <mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> > The problem is that in this context distcc incorrectly thinks the .S
> > file is the name of the compiler.
> And it couldn't possibly tell otherwise should the .S file be
> executable.

Actually, it can tell, because it looks like a source file name.
However, this was broken in a recent version when I took a patch to
allow for .S files containing .include lines. :-(

distcc probably can't handle

  distcc "MY 1st C Source File.txt" -c 

even though perhaps gcc can, but this definitely fits into the class
of getting what you deserve.

> One more reason to prefer explicit compiler names.  (Not that I'm
> against the convenience of being able to omit it, I just don't take
> this risk myself)

Yes, I agree.


More information about the distcc mailing list