On Monday, April 09, 2018 11:02:01 AM Warner Losh wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 10:44 AM, Ed Maste <ema...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 6 April 2018 at 13:54, John Baldwin <j...@freebsd.org> wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 06, 2018 02:57:58 AM Ed Maste wrote:
> > >> Author: emaste
> > >> Date: Fri Apr  6 02:57:58 2018
> > >> New Revision: 332090
> > >> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/332090
> > >>
> > >> Log:
> > >>   stand: pass --no-rosegment for i386 bits when linking with lld
> > >>
> > >
> > > Maybe we should support LDFLAGS.${LINKER_TYPE} as we do for CFLAGS, etc.?
> >
> > I don't anticipate LINKER_TYPE tests proliferating, but a good point
> > nonetheless. Change proposed in review D14998.
> >
> 
> We only really support two compilers. This lets us have fewer .if
> statements which historically people have messed often enough that we've
> move to constructs that avoid them.

I do think we are likely to have far fewer conditional LDFLAGS rather
than CFLAGS though.  I think if we are only going to have 1 or 2
instances in the tree then LDFLAGS.LINKER_TYPE might perhaps be
overkill, but if we think there will be several then I think it is
more readable.

-- 
John Baldwin
_______________________________________________
svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to