On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:54:34 ChIIph wrote: > On 03/06/10 23:27, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:27:21 ChIIph wrote: > >> Here are some minor changes I'd like to propose to flag-o-matic's > >> _filter-var() to work properly with LDFLAGS. > >> Without this, things like "-Wl,-O1,--as-needed" won't be affected by any > >> kind of filter since there are no spaces to separate each flag. > >> > >> I don't know of any better way to do this, but here's a patch that works > >> just fine. > > > > the func is used by other code where you dont want to screw with commas. > > The commas are only added when there's LDFLAGS being changed.
you missed my point. read the whole eclass -- this function isnt only used on LDFLAGS. your patch opens the door to incorrectly split/mangle other variables. > > plus, there are a few other ways to trick the system. > > > > my opinion is still: > > - bypassing the system is sometimes useful > > - use separate -Wl flags and things just work > > Ok, but in the default profiles LDFLAGS are separated with commas, so > for that second opinion to be possible, I think that should be changed. i really have no idea what you're talking about. no default profile uses the multi-linker flag form. > On the other hand, a lot of us use comma separated flags, so for all of > us filter-ldflags doesn't work, and what I've modify doesn't mess with > any of all the other function (or at least I haven't found the case in > which it does). then change your LDFLAGS > Anyway, filter-ldflags doesn't work like it is right now, I'm not saying > use _my_ code, but use whatever you think it's best to fix this. i dont see any bug so you're going to have to be more specific -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
