From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2018 15:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <11431.1522611733@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de>
References: <25214.1522604295@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180401174338.dgwcclz3ljiumaeq@alap3.anarazel.de>
<25881.1522605305@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20180401192535.pariji2i3aw4rvf4@alap3.anarazel.de>
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2018-04-01 13:55:05 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> 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.
That's pretty hard to believe. Why would we bother to override every
default rule? Even if it's true today, I would not accept it as project
policy that we must do so. Perhaps more to the point, I would strongly
object to any design in which the standard Make variables don't mean
what the default rules expect them to mean. That's just a recipe for
confusing people and creating hard-to-spot bugs.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, andres@anarazel.de, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Rethinking -L switch handling and construction of LDFLAGS
In-Reply-To: <11431.1522611733@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox