On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 11:08:29AM -0800, Nick Desaulniers wrote: > > +``LLVM=0`` is not the same as omitting ``LLVM`` altogether, it will behave like > > +``LLVM=1``. > > Hmm... I can see someone's build wrappers setting LLVM=1, then them > being surprised that appending LLVM=0 doesn't disable LLVM=1 as they > might expect. But Masahiro says let's fix this later which is fine. What happens if you say LLVM= instead of LLVM=0 ? Would that "undo" a prior LLVM=1 and use GCC instead?
