On 1/5/2012 12:46 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
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.
Change looks fine, and eliminates a seldom used variable
(CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG)
Dave
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
