From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTz9X-0003kV-Az for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:20:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MTz9R-0003Yu-QR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:20:10 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=34858 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MTz9R-0003Yp-OY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:20:05 -0400 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:47717) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTz9R-0006mB-Hj for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:20:05 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MTz9Q-0008Fl-Cf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:20:04 -0400 Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 07:20:03 -0700 From: Nathan Froyd Message-ID: <20090723142002.GJ32566@codesourcery.com> References: <1248349241-26029-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <4A68700B.5090609@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] configure: fix breakage of --extra-{cflags, ldflags} List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Juan Quintela Cc: Jan Kiszka , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:43:26PM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> -CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -Wall -Wundef -Wendif-labels -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -Wredundant-decls" > >> -LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -g" > >> +CFLAGS="$CFLAGS $EXTRA_CFLAGS -Wall -Wundef -Wendif-labels -Wwrite-strings -Wmissing-prototypes -Wstrict-prototypes -Wredundant-decls" > >> +LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS $EXTRA_LDFLAGS -g" > > > > ...but now we add the extra flags twice. So please remove the injection > > into the flags for $config_mak. > > It is still broken. Thinking of a solution. > People wanted EXTRA_CFLAGS to be added at the end of CFLAGS, not in the > middle. Trying to find a way that is consistent for everything. > > Could you told in what test do you need extra_cflags? The particular instance was for detecting zlib in a cross configuration. But that's not necessarily the only test where --extra-{cflags,ldflags} would be useful: every test that needs external libraries is subject to this bug (zlib, TLS, SASL, SDL, VDE libraries, BrlAPI?, Xen?, bluez?, etc.). If adding EXTRA_{CFLAGS,LDFLAGS} to all such tests is necessary and people feel that's the best solution, then I can do that. -Nathan