[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LD not precious?
From: |
Philip A. Prindeville |
Subject: |
Re: LD not precious? |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 13:28:02 -0800 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091112 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4 |
On 01/14/2010 12:49 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Philip A. Prindeville wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:35:59PM CET:
>> On 01/14/2010 12:10 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> * Philip A. Prindeville wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:43:49AM CET:
>>>>
>>>> Is that an oversight? I ask because in a cross-compilation
>>>> environment, getting CC and LD right are equally important.
>>>
>>> Sure, but why would $LD be more important in cross compilation setups
>>> than in native ones? The cross-compiler usually calls the right linker.
>
>> Because I'm encountering Makefiles that call $(LD) directly, and
>> default LD to "ld" unless you explicitly override it (and not setting
>> it to $(CC)).
>
> Then that is a simple portability issue you should take up with the
> authors of those Makefiles' input files. They should add something like
> AC_CHECK_TOOL([LD], [ld])
>
> to their configure.ac, just like it is necessary to use AC_PROG_CC in
> order to use $CC.
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
And that will do the @LD@ substitution as well?
- LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?,
Philip A. Prindeville <=
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14