From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.43) id 1FUnJm-000371-24 for mharc-grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:08:14 -0400 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUnJk-00035m-Rn for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:08:13 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FUnJi-00033L-DG for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:08:12 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FUnJi-00032v-0L for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:08:10 -0400 Received: from [212.85.152.101] (helo=kotoba.storever.com) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FUnJw-0004II-8i for grub-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 12:08:24 -0400 Received: from kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com (kotoba.oasis.nexedi.com [212.85.152.101]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09E6A3C82BDD3 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:22:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [??1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kotoba.storever.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DDD83C82BDD2 for ; Sat, 15 Apr 2006 19:22:42 +0200 (CEST) From: "Yoshinori K. Okuji" Organization: enbug.org To: The development of GRUB 2 Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 18:08:10 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <3ee0a8f18ea58d3a5094266f8e7f8e42@penguinppc.org> <57f712e870e8b39976683ebb36ced63e@penguinppc.org> <7f14e5a128ae730f6843907a94cc4b4b@penguinppc.org> In-Reply-To: <7f14e5a128ae730f6843907a94cc4b4b@penguinppc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200604151808.11413.okuji@enbug.org> X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.424720, version=0.17.2 Subject: Re: LDFLAGS X-BeenThere: grub-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: The development of GRUB 2 List-Id: The development of GRUB 2 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2006 16:08:13 -0000 On Saturday 15 April 2006 16:06, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > If we take "compiler" to mean "gcc", then LDFLAGS contains gcc options, > and should never be used directly by ld. It is worth noting that there > is no standard LD variable, suggesting (as I have heard others suggest) > that we should not be invoking ld directly. I will try out that patch. I agree. We should not invoke ld directly, if possible... But please don't remove genmk.rb. I don't want to maintain huge Makefiles. Okuji