| From: | Neil Conway <neilc(at)samurai(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: LDFLAGS overriding |
| Date: | 2004-09-30 07:20:56 |
| Message-ID: | 1096528856.25277.192.camel@localhost.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
[ CC'ing Peter since this is usually his area ]
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 02:10, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I think your 'override' fix is correct. Personally I think override
> should be used in most cases in our code because we are usually careful
> to add to any flags already supplied by the user.
Ok, I think 'override' is definitely correct for the instance the patch
fixes, since the build breaks otherwise. Therefore I intend to apply the
patch I posted earlier to HEAD shortly, barring any objections.
In addition, we modify LDFLAGS in the following places:
(1) src/Makefile.global.in -- adding rpath flags
(2) src/Makefile.global.in -- adding LDFLAGS due to COPT/PROFILE
(3) src/makefiles/Makefile.hpux
(4) src/makefiles/Makefile.irix
(5) src/makefiles/Makefile.qnx4
(6) src/makefiles/Makefile.svr4
What do folks think about using override in these situations?
-Neil
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-09-30 10:30:11 | Re: minor doc change |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2004-09-30 05:53:43 | minor doc change |