This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES vs. libtool
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Ian Lance Taylor <iant at google dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:11:56 +0200
- Subject: Re: GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES vs. libtool
- References: <mcr8vvy8oz6.fsf@google.com> <20110329055527.GA27293@gmx.de>
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:55:27AM CEST:
> * Ian Lance Taylor wrote on Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 07:39:25AM CEST:
> > Shortly after that code in libtool.m4, I see this:
> >
> > if test -f /etc/ld.so.conf; then
> > lt_ld_extra=`awk '/^include / { system(sprintf("cd /etc; cat %s 2>/dev/null", \[$]2)); skip = 1; } { if (!skip) print \[$]0; skip = 0; }' < /etc/ld.so.conf | $SED -e 's/#.*//;/^[ ]*hwcap[ ]/d;s/[:, ]/ /g;s/=[^=]*$//;s/=[^= ]* / /g;s/"//g;/^$/d' | tr '\n' ' '`
> > sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec="/lib /usr/lib $lt_ld_extra"
> > fi
This code, too, is guarded by cache variables, but that's not easy to
see; lt_cv_sys_lib_search_path_spec and lt_cv_sys_lib_dlsearch_path_spec
are checked only several lines later, near the end of the macro.
So GCC (or the user) could override them too, if need be.
Cheers,
Ralf