Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
Date: 2018-04-01 19:25:35
Message-ID: 20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

On 2018-04-01 13:55:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Why don't we change the link commands to reference LDFLAGS_INTERNAL
> > explicitly? That seems like it'd be cleaner.
>
> 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.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2018-04-01 19:42:13 Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
Previous Message Andres Freund 2018-04-01 19:07:47 Re: bulk typos