> > > Index: Link.pm > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/libtool/LT/Mode/Link.pm,v > > > retrieving revision 1.31 > > > diff -u -p -p -u -r1.31 Link.pm > > > --- Link.pm 27 Apr 2016 09:50:57 -0000 1.31 > > > +++ Link.pm 1 Aug 2016 11:36:31 -0000 > > > @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ sub run > > > 'all-static', > > > 'allow-undefined', # we don't care about THAT one > > > 'avoid-version', > > > + 'bindir:', > > > 'dlopen:', > > > 'dlpreopen:', > > > 'export-dynamic', > > > @@ -152,7 +153,7 @@ sub run > > > 'version-info:', > > > 'version-number:'); > > > > > > - # XXX options ignored: dlopen, dlpreopen, no-fast-install, > > > + # XXX options ignored: bindir, dlopen, dlpreopen, no-fast-install, > > > # no-install, no-undefined, precious-files-regex, > > > # shrext, thread-safe, prefer-pic, prefer-non-pic > > > > I'm wondering about the second hunk: is this a mix of options that we > > don't support on purpose and of options that could be useful? > > (eg. -no-undefined.) So is the second hunk of this diff desirable? > > > The main thing about that diff is that it has to go into a successful > bulk.
I think that goes without saying... I'll do that in a few. > As for ignored options, it's informative. It tells us we ignore those > options. Which ones should actually be supported is another story. > -- Antoine
