Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Why are these modules built without respecting my LDFLAGS?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: "Aaron W(dot) Swenson" <aaron(dot)w(dot)swenson(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Why are these modules built without respecting my LDFLAGS?
Date: 2010-07-03 22:41:22
Message-ID: 17938.1278196882@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On sn, 2010-06-27 at 19:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> OK, so after some digging I find that, while most of the .so's in our
>> build are made using Makefile.shlib, pgxs's "MODULES" build rules
>> don't
>> use that.  Instead they rely on the "%.so: %.o" (and platform-specific
>> variants of that) rules found in src/makefiles/Makefile*.  And on most
>> platforms we've neglected to include LDFLAGS_SL in those rules.  This
>> seems like an oversight, especially since the one platform that has
>> nonempty LDFLAGS_SL by default (AIX) does include LDFLAGS_SL.

> I think this issue is brought up about once a year.  You might want to
> review previous discussions.

I dug around in the archives a bit and failed to find much of any
discussion since the original addition of LDFLAGS_SL in 2004.  I did
find a couple of things showing the reasons why AIX has LDFLAGS_SL
there, eg,
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-bugs/2005-12/msg00061.php
but that just confirms my feeling that Makefile.aix has this right
and the other platforms are a brick shy of a load.

Do you have any specific objection to the proposal I made, ie

	LDFLAGS = switches for linking both executables and shlibs
	LDFLAGS_EX = extra switches for linking executables only
	LDFLAGS_SL = extra switches for linking shlibs only

which'd imply adding LDFLAGS and LDFLAGS_SL to all the .o-to-.so rules?

			regards, tom lane

In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2010-07-04 02:15:23
Subject: Re: _bt_parent_deletion_safe() isn't safe
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-03 20:18:11
Subject: Re: Keepalive for max_standby_delay

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group