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

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