| 1 |
2008-07-26 02:45:57 Ciaran McCreesh napisał(a): |
| 2 |
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2008 00:15:03 +0000 (UTC) |
| 3 |
> Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > In particular, --as-needed makes a HUGE very practical difference. |
| 5 |
> > It may or may not be the wrong answer to the problem in theory, but |
| 6 |
> > lacking anything even close to as workable right now, that alone is |
| 7 |
> > IMO reason enough to work to get LDFLAGS honored. I appreciate the |
| 8 |
> > difference it made here every time I run revdep-rebuild! |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Ignoring CFLAGS on some archs results in code that is either an order |
| 11 |
> of magnitude slower or just plain won't run. Ignoring LDFLAGS means on |
| 12 |
> those rare occasions when libraries aren't slotted properly you have to |
| 13 |
> rebuild a few more things. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Rather a large difference in impact there... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Respecting LDFLAGS provides also some some degree of optimization. |
| 18 |
Potential benefits of LDFLAGS are sufficient to fix packages which ignore |
| 19 |
LDFLAGS. The difference in impact is irrelevant, because even bugs without |
| 20 |
any impact can be filed and should be fixed. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis |
Archives