[PD-dev] general makefile question

[Bryan Jurish]

morning all,

On 2010-12-02 20:18:45, Hans-Christoph Steiner <hans at at.or.at> appears
to have written:
> On Dec 2, 2010, at 4:16 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
>> On 2010-12-01 23:56, Albert Graef wrote:
>>> IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
>>> This is only a convention, of course, but it's part of the GNU Coding
>>> Standards
>>
>> i think the curcial part is:
>> "If there are C compiler options that must be used for proper
>> compilation of certain files, do not include them in CFLAGS. Users
>> expect to be able to specify CFLAGS freely themselves."
>>
>> and i think this can also be extrapolated for any of the standard flags
>> (CPPFLAGS, CFLAGS, CXXFLAGS, LDFLAGS)
> 
> So what do you propose?  

Maybe I'm misreading this thread, but wasn't there something like:
> something like 'PD_LDFLAGS="-Wl,--export-dynamic  -shared $(LDFLAGS)"'
> and then consequently using $(PD_LDFLAGS) in the linking stage?

in IOhannes' original posting?  Use of a dedicated internal variable has
a lot of precedents (e.g. automake's use of AM_CFLAGS etc.), and should
in fact be *more* robust than the status quo...

> I for one am really sick of build system
> stuff.  What we have works quite well on many platform, but yes, its not
> perfect.  About changes to the template Makefile, last time
[snip]

Easy does it... please step away from any sharp objects or small furry
animals for a moment... OK, now: bugs happen.  I read this thread
primarily as an attempt to ensure that *fewer* bugs happen in the
future, and I think replacing non-standard uses of standard *FLAGS
variables in any build system is a worthwhile endeavor in that respect.

@IOhannes: sorry about my bogus "+=" suggestion; posted without testing
it first :-/

marmosets,
	Bryan

-- 
Bryan Jurish                       "There is *always* one more bug."
jurish at uni-potsdam.de       -Lubarsky's Law of Cybernetic Entomology