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"
