[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile
From: |
Lyndon Nerenberg |
Subject: |
Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile |
Date: |
Fri, 1 Feb 2013 08:43:08 -0800 |
On 2013-02-01, at 8:32 AM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Err ... are you sure? -g is a classic example of something that should be
> in there.
Generally that stuff goes into $DEBUG which is then included in CFLAGS and
LDFLAGS.
> From reading the Autoconf manual, it suggests that while it's technically
> for only the preprocessor pass flags that are only for the object compilation
> phase can be placed in CPPFLAGS. I was under the impression that since
> CCLD is generally set to $(CC) the C compiler wrapper should ignore flags
> that make no sense during linking.
Not when you have things like -Wa,foo, the -X family, and the like. I've
always maintained a distinction between CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, using the latter
exclusively during the linking step. It just seems cleaner to me to do it that
way.
- [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile,
Lyndon Nerenberg <=
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/01
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Ken Hornstein, 2013/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/02
- Re: [Nmh-workers] Dodgy $LINK in generated Makefile, Lyndon Nerenberg, 2013/02/02