On 2013-05-05 14:11, Andrea D'Amore wrote: > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Ryan Schmidt <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (I've been passing options to ld 134.9 on purpose to test this), >>> should we make that line >>> default configure.ldflags {"-L${prefix}/lib >>> -headerpad_max_install_names"} >>> instead? >> >> I haven't noticed any ill effects from using >> -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names; have you? > > No, I haven't. I was trying to track down an issue with macports' > luajit and noticed this while reading the log. > > Again, even if the man page doesn't mention it, and ld64 sources from > Apple doesn't contain the code to parse "-Wl" it seems to work, you > can countercheck by setting a -arch option in CFLAGS and then a > different one in LDFLAGS using "-Wl,-arch,", the linker will complain.
Both CFLAGS and LDFLAGS are passed by the compiler, as Makefiles usually use $(CC) for both compiling and linking. >> Tons of projects misuse the *FLAGS variables and put them in the wrong >> places, so I'm sure there are projects that use LDFLAGS even when not >> linking. My understanding is that "-Wl," ensures that the flag will only get >> passed to the linker. > > I know, lot of makefiles pass LDFLAGS to compile commands rather than > to link ones so that justifies the use of "-Wl," since it's a compiler > option. > Should we just follow the trend and use an undocumented option for the > sake of ease or should we switch ti -headerpad_max_install and > patch/report upstream those softwares who do not comply? -Wl is a documented option for the compiler (both clang and gcc) and it is used to pass options to the linker. > I'd prefer the latter unless somehow it turns out -Wl, is an official > ld option that is just not documented. When calling the compiler executable for linking, using -Wl would actually be more accurate. Rainer _______________________________________________ macports-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-dev
