morning all,
On 2010-12-02 20:18:45, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@at.or.at appears to have written:
On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:16 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
On 2010-12-01 23:56, Albert Graef wrote:
IOhannes m zmölnig wrote: This is only a convention, of course, but it's part of the GNU Coding Standards
i think the curcial part is: "If there are C compiler options that must be used for proper compilation of certain files, do not include them in CFLAGS. Users expect to be able to specify CFLAGS freely themselves."
and i think this can also be extrapolated for any of the standard flags (CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS)
So what do you propose?
Maybe I'm misreading this thread, but wasn't there something like:
something like 'PD_LDFLAGS="-Wl,--export-dynamic -shared $(LDFLAGS)"' and then consequently using $(PD_LDFLAGS) in the linking stage?
in IOhannes' original posting? Use of a dedicated internal variable has a lot of precedents (e.g. automake's use of AM_CFLAGS etc.), and should in fact be *more* robust than the status quo...
I for one am really sick of build system stuff. What we have works quite well on many platform, but yes, its not perfect. About changes to the template Makefile, last time
[snip]
Easy does it... please step away from any sharp objects or small furry animals for a moment... OK, now: bugs happen. I read this thread primarily as an attempt to ensure that *fewer* bugs happen in the future, and I think replacing non-standard uses of standard *FLAGS variables in any build system is a worthwhile endeavor in that respect.
@IOhannes: sorry about my bogus "+=" suggestion; posted without testing it first :-/
marmosets, Bryan