On Sun, Jul 5, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Mike Frysinger<[email protected]> wrote: > On Sunday 05 July 2009 18:22:03 Garrett Cooper wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Mike Frysinger<[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Saturday 04 July 2009 03:18:10 Garrett Cooper wrote: >> >> 3. LOADLIBES is less of a standard variable than LDLIBS is. >> > >> > i think splitting between the two should be OK ... LDLIBS for system libs >> > (i.e. -lfoo) and LOADLIBES for internal LTP libs (i.e. libltp.a). >> >> Eh? We need to standardize on one variable instead of duplicating >> between both of them or it'll make folks cranky when they have to pass >> more vars on the command line... > > people shouldnt have to ever touch LOADLIBES in any way. if it's for internal > LTP use only, i dont think there should be a problem. > > the issue with merging the two vars is possible incorrect ordering of system > libraries and internal libraries. i.e. if you add a system lib to LDLIBS and > then internal libs get appended but they need simples in that system lib, then > static (and related) builds will most likely fail. > > having them split means we can force correct link order all the time: > $(LD) ... $(LOADLIBES) $(LDLIBS)
Ok. We need to explicitly mention this though to avoid confusion. Why in the world would _we_ need to set LOADLIBES though? It sounds like a recipe for disaster with cross-compile environments where _we_ could be choosing a library on the host system instead of out of the target sys-root, etc. IMHO most of this use can be remedied through multiple iterative tests, using $(sort ), or just cherry picking the variable and grabbing whatever values are needed, or dealing with whacky build requests when they come up (which should be < ~10% of the folks out there). Thanks, -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
