This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, aoliva at redhat dot com
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 17:59:15 -0400
Subject: Re: PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3
References: <200507272135.j6RLZHH2024117@sethra.codesourcery.com> <20050727215346.GA21277@nevyn.them.org> <42E80309.3090901@codesourcery.com>

On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 02:56:25PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 
> >That would be a bug.  LDFLAGS are intended to be compiler driver
> >options; that's not a new requirement.
> 
> OK, great.  So, then, the libstdc++ Makefiles should turn them into -Wc, 
> options to libtool, rather than -Wl, as I proposed?  That would make 
> clear to libtool that it needs to pass them along to the compiler, 
> rather than silently ignore them.  Thoughts?

Or you could do that in the top level, since only --sysroot is affected?
Will libtool pass -Wc options to the link phase?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC

Follow-Ups:
- Re: PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3
  - From: Mark Mitchell

References:
- PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: PATCH: LDFLAGS handling in V3
  - From: Mark Mitchell

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]