Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Samuli Suominen <ssuominen@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles/default/linux: make.defaults
Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 12:58:36
Message-Id: 4C3B1173.1000309@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles/default/linux: make.defaults by Jeremy Olexa
1 On 07/12/2010 03:50 PM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
2 > On 07/12/2010 12:12 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
3 >> On 07/12/2010 07:53 AM, Jeremy Olexa wrote:
4 >>> On 07/11/2010 02:50 PM, Samuli Suominen (ssuominen) wrote:
5 >>>> -LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
6 >>>> +LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 ${LDFLAGS}"
7 >>>
8 >>> My existing, custom, entry for LDFLAGS breaks with this change. Not
9 >>> nice.
10 >>>
11 >>> %% grep LDFLAGS /etc/make.conf
12 >>> LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS},--hash-style=gnu -Wl,--as-needed"
13 >>>
14 >>> -Jeremy
15 >>
16 >> that only worked before because of a fluke (= profiles had only one
17 >> LDFLAGS before).
18 >> it's not valid to assume -Wl gets passed from previous instance and
19 >> leave next ones dangling.
20 >>
21 >
22 > Ok, I thought it was alittle "funny" to change a variable's behavior
23 > from non-stacking to stacking. If no one else has a problem with it, I
24 > will just change my make.conf and get over it. No worries.
25 >
26 > -Jeremy
27 >
28
29 in fact, on related issue...
30
31 the whitespace generated by that approach had a negative impact on
32 dev-util/boost-build which is error prone to them
33
34 so it got changed, your flags should work again (although they are too
35 clever :-)
36
37 - Samuli