Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
Date
Msg-id 20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List 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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: bulk typos
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS