1 |
On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:54:34 ChIIph wrote: |
2 |
> On 03/06/10 23:27, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
3 |
> > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:27:21 ChIIph wrote: |
4 |
> >> Here are some minor changes I'd like to propose to flag-o-matic's |
5 |
> >> _filter-var() to work properly with LDFLAGS. |
6 |
> >> Without this, things like "-Wl,-O1,--as-needed" won't be affected by any |
7 |
> >> kind of filter since there are no spaces to separate each flag. |
8 |
> >> |
9 |
> >> I don't know of any better way to do this, but here's a patch that works |
10 |
> >> just fine. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > the func is used by other code where you dont want to screw with commas. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> The commas are only added when there's LDFLAGS being changed. |
15 |
|
16 |
you missed my point. read the whole eclass -- this function isnt only used on |
17 |
LDFLAGS. your patch opens the door to incorrectly split/mangle other |
18 |
variables. |
19 |
|
20 |
> > plus, there are a few other ways to trick the system. |
21 |
> > |
22 |
> > my opinion is still: |
23 |
> > - bypassing the system is sometimes useful |
24 |
> > - use separate -Wl flags and things just work |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Ok, but in the default profiles LDFLAGS are separated with commas, so |
27 |
> for that second opinion to be possible, I think that should be changed. |
28 |
|
29 |
i really have no idea what you're talking about. no default profile uses the |
30 |
multi-linker flag form. |
31 |
|
32 |
> On the other hand, a lot of us use comma separated flags, so for all of |
33 |
> us filter-ldflags doesn't work, and what I've modify doesn't mess with |
34 |
> any of all the other function (or at least I haven't found the case in |
35 |
> which it does). |
36 |
|
37 |
then change your LDFLAGS |
38 |
|
39 |
> Anyway, filter-ldflags doesn't work like it is right now, I'm not saying |
40 |
> use _my_ code, but use whatever you think it's best to fix this. |
41 |
|
42 |
i dont see any bug so you're going to have to be more specific |
43 |
-mike |