Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:25 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr> To: Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LDFLAGS setting Message-ID: <20060221122525.GB7564@flame.pc> In-Reply-To: <20060221092324.GA23739@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> References: <20060220172730.GA61906@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20060220174250.GA35343@flame.pc> <20060221092324.GA23739@stud.fit.vutbr.cz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2006-02-21 10:23, Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: >On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:42:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-02-20 18:27, Divacky Roman <xdivac02@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: >>> hi >>> >>> is is possible to set global LDFLAGS as its possible with CFLAGS? >> >> Yes, but why would you want to do this? It is very likely to create >> dependencies with libraries that are not really used by all programs. > > I was just curious. man ld promises some optimizations and thats what I am > interested in: LDFLAGS=-O1 --sort-common -z combreloc --relax > > but this doesnt seem to work with autoconf :( That's a bug in the specific autoconf-based build infrastructure you are using LDFLAGS with. Autotools-based build processes are notorious for being complex, very convoluted and stupidly riddled with assumptions about what the current environment looks or works like. It's not very surprising that you found something that ignores LDFLAGS in the enrivonment :(
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060221122525.GB7564>