| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS |
| Date: | 2018-04-01 19:42:13 |
| Message-ID: | 11431.1522611733@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-04-01 13:55:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm hesitant to do that because LDFLAGS is a name known to make's
>> default rules, and I don't want to bet that we're not relying on
>> those default rules anywhere.
> FWIW, postgres builds cleanly with -r -R in MAKELAGS.
That's pretty hard to believe. Why would we bother to override every
default rule? Even if it's true today, I would not accept it as project
policy that we must do so. Perhaps more to the point, I would strongly
object to any design in which the standard Make variables don't mean
what the default rules expect them to mean. That's just a recipe for
confusing people and creating hard-to-spot bugs.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dmitry Ivanov | 2018-04-01 20:00:43 | Re: new function for tsquery creartion |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2018-04-01 19:25:35 | Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS |