| 1 |
On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:59:25 ChIIph wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 03/07/10 14:50, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:54:34 ChIIph wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> [snip] |
| 5 |
> >> The commas are only added when there's LDFLAGS being changed. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > you missed my point. read the whole eclass -- this function isnt only |
| 8 |
> > used on LDFLAGS. your patch opens the door to incorrectly split/mangle |
| 9 |
> > other variables. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> I know, what I wanted to say is that I've tested those changes with more |
| 12 |
> than filter-ldflags funtion, and I proposed it here because it works in |
| 13 |
> every case. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
no, it really doesnt. it took me two seconds to put together an example where |
| 16 |
your change corrupted CFLAGS. an unlikely value, but a valid value |
| 17 |
nonetheless, which means your proposal is unacceptable on that merit alone. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> >>> plus, there are a few other ways to trick the system. |
| 20 |
> >>> |
| 21 |
> >>> my opinion is still: |
| 22 |
> >>> - bypassing the system is sometimes useful |
| 23 |
> >>> - use separate -Wl flags and things just work |
| 24 |
> >> |
| 25 |
> >> Ok, but in the default profiles LDFLAGS are separated with commas, so |
| 26 |
> >> for that second opinion to be possible, I think that should be changed. |
| 27 |
> > |
| 28 |
> > i really have no idea what you're talking about. no default profile uses |
| 29 |
> > the multi-linker flag form. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> grep -nR LDFLAGS /usr/portage/profiles/* |
| 32 |
> (...) |
| 33 |
> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/make.defaults:53:LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1" |
| 34 |
> (...) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
how is that relevant ? people use `filter-flags -Wl,-O1`, they dont use |
| 37 |
`filter-flags -O1`. this is not multiple linker flags combined into one -Wl. |
| 38 |
-mike |
Archives