1 |
On Tuesday 09 December 2008 14:14:05 Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
2 |
> On 10:33 Mon 08 Dec , Jeremy Olexa wrote: |
3 |
> > Hello, |
4 |
> > I am seeking a positive code review on the following change to |
5 |
> > flag-o-matic.eclass, diff is below (reasons are below that): |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > %% cvs diff |
8 |
> > Index: flag-o-matic.eclass |
9 |
> > RCS file: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass,v |
10 |
> > retrieving revision 1.126 |
11 |
> > diff -u -r1.126 flag-o-matic.eclass |
12 |
> > --- flag-o-matic.eclass 3 Nov 2008 05:52:39 -0000 1.126 |
13 |
> > +++ flag-o-matic.eclass 25 Nov 2008 18:36:04 -0000 |
14 |
> > @@ -417,7 +417,8 @@ |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > x="" |
17 |
> > for x in "$@" ; do |
18 |
> > - test-flag-${comp} "${x}" && flags="${flags}${flags:+ |
19 |
> > }${x}" + test-flag-${comp} "${x}" && |
20 |
> > flags="${flags}${flags:+ }${x}" || \ + ewarn |
21 |
> > "removing ${x} because ${comp} rejected it" done |
22 |
> > |
23 |
> > echo "${flags}" |
24 |
> > @@ -656,7 +657,7 @@ |
25 |
> > ewarn "Appending a library link instruction |
26 |
> > (${flag}); libraries to link to should not be passed through LDFLAGS" |
27 |
> > done |
28 |
> > |
29 |
> > - export LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} $*" |
30 |
> > + export LDFLAGS="${LDFLAGS} $(test-flags "$@")" |
31 |
> > return 0 |
32 |
> > } |
33 |
> |
34 |
> I like the consistency with other flags: |
35 |
> |
36 |
> comet $ grep FLAGS.*test-fl /usr/portage/eclass/flag-o-matic.eclass |
37 |
> export CFLAGS=$(test-flags-CC ${CFLAGS}) |
38 |
> export CXXFLAGS=$(test-flags-CXX ${CXXFLAGS}) |
39 |
> export FFLAGS=$(test-flags-F77 ${FFLAGS}) |
40 |
> export FCFLAGS=$(test-flags-FC ${FCFLAGS}) |
41 |
|
42 |
your grep ignores the bigger picture. this is only in the strip-unsupported- |
43 |
flag function. so while we should flesh it out to include CPPFLAGS/LDFLAGS, |
44 |
it doesnt really address the original question. |
45 |
-mike |