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: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:12:23 -0400 Message-ID: <20141028221223.GA20722@peff.net> References: <87mw8iag72.fsf@gmail.com> <20141026183530.GA18144@peff.net> <20141027051705.GC2996@peff.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Cc: David Michael , Eric Sunshine , Git List To: Junio C Hamano X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Oct 28 23:12:35 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 1XjF0F-0002gB-2B for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 23:12:35 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755504AbaJ1WM2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:12:28 -0400 Received: from cloud.peff.net ([50.56.180.127]:34717 "HELO cloud.peff.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755492AbaJ1WM0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:12:26 -0400 Received: (qmail 9529 invoked by uid 102); 28 Oct 2014 22:12:26 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO peff.net) (10.0.1.1) by cloud.peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 17:12:26 -0500 Received: (qmail 27953 invoked by uid 107); 28 Oct 2014 22:12:29 -0000 Received: from sigill.intra.peff.net (HELO sigill.intra.peff.net) (10.0.0.7) by peff.net (qpsmtpd/0.84) with SMTP; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:12:29 -0400 Received: by sigill.intra.peff.net (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 28 Oct 2014 18:12:23 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 10:42:21AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> 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). > > I think you meant s/nobody else's/breaks &/; I meant "using the _C_89_CCMODE workaround does not help anybody else, because their compiler will not support it; instead we should fix the Makefile as David originally proposed". I think we are still agreeing, though. :) -Peff