[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
LD not precious?
From: |
Philip A. Prindeville |
Subject: |
LD not precious? |
Date: |
Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:43:49 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091112 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 |
Hi,
Silly question, but I was working on a particular project (dahdi-tools) and I
noticed that the value of LD that was passed to "configure" didn't get saved
into "makeopts".
I hacked the configure.ac file as:
--- dahdi-tools-2.2.0/configure.ac.orig 2009-01-16 06:18:10.000000000 -0800
+++ dahdi-tools-2.2.0/configure.ac 2010-01-13 17:16:00.000000000 -0800
@@ -29,6 +29,8 @@ fi
# This needs to be before any macros that use the C compiler
AC_GNU_SOURCE
+AC_SUBST(LD)
+
# Checks for programs.
AC_PROG_CC
AC_PROG_CPP
and this seems to work, but this left me wondering why "LD" isn't a precious
variable, just like "CC" is.
Looking at the contents of /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf/ for autoconf 2.63, I'm
not seeing \<LD\> anywhere.
Is that an oversight? I ask because in a cross-compilation environment, getting
CC and LD right are equally important.
Thanks,
-Philip
- LD not precious?,
Philip A. Prindeville <=
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14