From owner-svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Dec 22 05:02:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83E03940; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:02:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gerald@pfeifer.com) Received: from ainaz.pair.com (ainaz.pair.com [209.68.2.66]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 530578FC0A; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:02:05 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.0.10] (194.244.3.202.dsl.dyn.mana.pf [202.3.244.194]) by ainaz.pair.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24B623F466; Sat, 22 Dec 2012 00:01:58 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2012 19:01:52 -1000 (TAHT) From: Gerald Pfeifer To: Andriy Gapon Subject: Re: svn commit: r307045 - head/Mk In-Reply-To: <5098E619.3070902@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <201211060023.qA60NhFW028290@svn.freebsd.org> <5098E619.3070902@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Cc: svn-ports-head@FreeBSD.org, svn-ports-all@FreeBSD.org, Gerald Pfeifer , ports-committers@FreeBSD.org X-BeenThere: svn-ports-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the ports tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2012 05:02:05 -0000 On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote: >> This extends revision r246991 (2010-01-02) and should not be necessary >> in most cases since LDFLAGS already covers linking, but one can always > > Rather than adding this flag to CXXFLAGS why not drop it from CFLAGS? > There is no place for linker options in compilation flags. Yes, but, there is an amazing lot of broken software out there. And, unlike compilation errors, failure to locate run-time libraries (or the right ones) is a lot harder to detect and we currently don't have a way to do so automatically. >> compile and link in one swoop, and this makes things consistent between >> C and C++. > This is a strange argument. When one does compilation and linking in > one swoop one uses both CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS. In non-broken > software there is never a dependency on linker flags auto-magically > appearing in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS. If we'd only be dealing with non-broken software (or well maintained ports), I could have saved a couple of days of FreeBSD work this past year alone. :-/ I'm not opposed to removing this from both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS, it "just" needs committment by all port maintainers to fix, if not test, their ports accordingly. That's the crux I see. Gerald