Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 20:38:59 -0400 From: Ed Maste <emaste@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>, src-committers <src-committers@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, svn-src-head@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r332090 - head/stand/i386 Message-ID: <CAPyFy2CdH_5MrZwwpyteoJZ_mXnJs0EYM7a2TWfhZ5cQSLo2Dw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <3188731.iHBUE9bOzj@ralph.baldwin.cx> References: <201804060257.w362vwi3023158@repo.freebsd.org> <CAPyFy2CKa1nit1B15FTjGYEME0ya5CxLNwH44Xwz_QaM9Rsy7A@mail.gmail.com> <CANCZdfoJUS14gvSDNch%2B_bdwyVrAHPRZW73LtzWQXyPOOV64Rg@mail.gmail.com> <3188731.iHBUE9bOzj@ralph.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 9 April 2018 at 15:28, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > I do think we are likely to have far fewer conditional LDFLAGS rather > than CFLAGS though. I think if we are only going to have 1 or 2 > instances in the tree then LDFLAGS.LINKER_TYPE might perhaps be > overkill, but if we think there will be several then I think it is > more readable. Indeed, I don't anticipate we'd end up with more than 1 or 2 instances, but even with only the single case today I think it is clearer (D14998).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAPyFy2CdH_5MrZwwpyteoJZ_mXnJs0EYM7a2TWfhZ5cQSLo2Dw>