From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff King Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Makefile: Reorder linker flags in the git executable rule Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:17:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20141027051705.GC2996@peff.net> References: <87mw8iag72.fsf@gmail.com> <20141026183530.GA18144@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: Eric Sunshine , Git List To: David Michael X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Oct 27 06:17:14 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Xicg5-0000aE-NZ for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 06:17:14 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751074AbaJ0FRJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:17:09 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:33963 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1750824AbaJ0FRJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:17:09 -0400 Received: (qmail 774 invoked by uid 102); 27 Oct 2014 05:17:09 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 00:17:09 -0500 Received: (qmail 2871 invoked by uid 107); 27 Oct 2014 05:17:12 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.1.2) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 01:17:12 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Sun, 26 Oct 2014 22:17:05 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 02:54:56PM -0400, David Michael wrote: > Yes, the compiler refuses to run by default when a "-L" option occurs > after a source/object file. It tries to interpret it as another file > name and fails. Yeah, I think I have seen similar behavior before, but it has been long enough that I no longer remember the compiler in use. > I believe I can work around the error with an "export _C89_CCMODE=1", > but I thought I'd send the patch since this is the only occurrence of > the problem, and the argument order is inconsistent with other linker > commands in the file. I don't think working around it makes sense. That would fix your case, but nobody else's (though given how long it has been that way without complaints, I suspect any other compilers this picky may have died off). > Do you want me to resend the patch and reference the IBM documentation > in the message? I don't think you need to. More interesting than documentation is the real-world breakage you experienced and the analysis of the situation. I'd be fine taking the patch as-is, or if changing anything, mentioning the failure mode in the commit message. -Peff