I got a little carried away... but here is what I came up with: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ohair/openjdk8/freetype-rpath/webrev/
Just got rid of CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG and also fixed a few indentation annoyances. The CC_OBJECT_OUTPUT_FLAG is used quite a bit in other places, but the CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG variable was not used consistently. Windows has multiple ways to specify the names. So I just got rid of it, everyone is explicit now. -kto On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Jonathan Lu wrote: > Hi Kelly, > > Thanks for reviewing, > > On 01/05/2012 06:35 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> The change sounds reasonable, but it's a change to something I have always >> hated, so it's somewhat distasteful to me >> because of that. Having the makefiles build and run an application as part >> of a sanity check just seems so... >> what is the word.... silly? :^( >> >> I had hoped that we could just have the sanity check inspect the freetype >> headers and libraries to >> insure the right version, not have to build an application just so we could >> run it to get the version number. >> On the other hand, building this little app is a way to verify that the >> freetype library links ok > Agree, have you got any good ideas about inspecting the headers and > libraries? especially for the integrity of a binary library, 'nm libaaa' ? >> So to the question of whether this change is ok, basically yes, but why was >> this line added: >> >> 53 CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG= -o >> >> ??? > This line is added because there may not be a definition of > CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG in jdk/make/common/Defs-<platform>.gmk for all Unix's, > so this line will make the little application pass the compilation even > without a Defs-<platform>.gmk. > > And if this change is OK, do you plan to push it? >> -kto >
