GNU bug report logs - #54020
document libtool compile-specific flags in manual

Previous Next

Full log

Message #72 received at 54020 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bogdan <bogdro_rep <at> gmx.us>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>
Cc: 54020 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, automake-patches <at> gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#54020: Allow user-defined libtool options
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2024 21:51:32 +0100

Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>, 2024-01-17 06:04:
> On 14 Jan 2024 18:55, Bogdan wrote:
>> Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>, 2024-01-14 02:06:
>>> On 13 Jan 2024 22:29, Bogdan wrote:
>>>> Mike Frysinger <vapier <at> gentoo.org>, 2024-01-13 07:19:
>>>>> On 15 Mar 2023 17:31, Bogdan wrote:
>>>>>>      Another patch from my side. This one makes it possible for users to
>>>>>> pass additional options to libtool in 'compile' mode. Fixes #54020.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Added documentation and a test case including the '-no-suppress'
>>>>>> option. All tests with 'lt' or 'libtool' in the name pass.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>      Feel free to rename the variables, I just came up with the names
>>>>>> LTCOMPILE_PREFLAGS and LTCOMPILE_POSTFLAGS, reflecting the positions
>>>>>> where the variables are put and the mode they're used in.
>>>>>
>>>>> why do we need LTCOMPILE_POSTFLAGS ?  isn't that just after the compile
>>>>> command ?  $obj_compile expands into e.g.
>>>>> 	\$(CC) @cpplike_flags \$(AM_CFLAGS) \$(CFLAGS)
>>>>>
>>>>> so if someone wants to add flags to C/etc..., they already have knobs
>>>>> to turn.
>>>>>
>>>>> which means this would simplify by only having one variable right ?
>>>>> AM_LTCOMPILE_FLAGS
>>>>
>>>>     Seems so, at least for now. At least for C compilers. At least until
>>>> $obj_compile becomes something else in the future or something more,
>>>> or even now contains (or will contain) other options after $(CFLAGS)
>>>> on the command line when using other compilers.
>>>>     For simplicity - yes, one flag like AM_LTCOMPILE_FLAGS should
>>>> suffice, at least now, as it seems. I've made pre- and post- flags for
>>>> better flexibility, to be future-proof.
>>>
>>> i don't see there ever being a future need here.  libtool's design is that
>>> it stops processing after the first non-argument after --mode=compile, and
>>> everything else is a wrapped command which libtool blindly executes.  those
>>> commands should have their own set of flags, and libtool is irrelevant at
>>> that point, so giving it a libtool-centric name that is used regardless of
>>> the wrapped command will never make sense.
>>
>>    And that's probably something I wasn't aware of. If it's
>> dead/useless code, feel free to remove this part. The fact that I made
>> a patch doesn't mean that it must be applied as a whole and never changed.
>
> the point of posting patches for review is to review and discuss and learn.
> maybe you saw something or an angle that i missed.  i don't know everything.
> -mike


 No problem. I hope I didn't sound rude or something, because that
wasn't the purpose. My mail was (supposed to be) completely neutral. I
don't get angry or something if someone reviews my patch, or modifies
it, or even completely rejects it.
 I don't know everything either and I my only purpose with adding 2
flags was to be just-in-case future-proof (so that we don't get a
similar report some time later, saying "can you make a flag like that,
because I need one after the invocation as well?", and not to support
something that already exists.

--
Regards - Bogdan ('bogdro') D.                 (GNU/Linux & FreeDOS)
X86 assembly (DOS, GNU/Linux):    http://bogdro.evai.pl/index-en.php
Soft(EN): http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft  http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft4asm
www.Xiph.org  www.TorProject.org  www.LibreOffice.org  www.GnuPG.org

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.