From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU1DP-0007sI-5K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MU1DJ-0007q9-MV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:17 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48349 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MU1DJ-0007q6-Hx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:13 -0400 Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]:15811) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MU1DI-0001Ua-S1 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:32:13 -0400 Message-ID: <4A689086.6080705@siemens.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:32:06 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1248349241-26029-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> <4A68700B.5090609@siemens.com> <20090723142002.GJ32566@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Nathan Froyd Juan Quintela wrote: > Nathan Froyd wrote: >> 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. > > I think that the solution is the other way around :) > > call configure with: > > CFLAGS="foo bar" ./configure > > and use CFLAGS for all configure script > > That was what I had in mind. > > If we do always in configure: > > CFLAGS="baz goo $CFLAGS" > > We also maintain the propierte that whatever you pass to CFLAGS is the > last option in CFLAG (i.e. can overwrote whatever found by configure. > > Then we can: > - kill extra cflags, > - win your feature, > - and have user wrote at the end of CFLAGS variable > > What do you think? No concerns. My only additional requirement is that configure should not forget about the provided CFLAGS when going through automatic reconfig, just like it's currently the case with --extra-* - and like autoconf behaves, too. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux