From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 21 12:26:08 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BC3616A422 for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C9B743D5F for ; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from flame.pc (aris.bedc.ondsl.gr [62.103.39.226]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.5/8.13.5/Debian-3) with ESMTP id k1LCPlG6022449 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:55 +0200 Received: from flame.pc (flame [127.0.0.1]) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k1LCPQXR024011; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:26 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by flame.pc (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k1LCPQuw024010; Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:26 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:25:25 +0200 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: Divacky Roman Message-ID: <20060221122525.GB7564@flame.pc> References: <20060220172730.GA61906@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> <20060220174250.GA35343@flame.pc> <20060221092324.GA23739@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060221092324.GA23739@stud.fit.vutbr.cz> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-3.366, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.83, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: LDFLAGS setting X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:26:08 -0000 On 2006-02-21 10:23, Divacky Roman wrote: >On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:42:50PM +0200, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: >>On 2006-02-20 18:27, Divacky Roman 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 :(