[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: *_LDFLAGS vs. *_LDADD vs. *_LIBADD

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: *_LDFLAGS vs. *_LDADD vs. *_LIBADD
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2006 13:16:14 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)

Hello Bruno,

* Bruno Haible wrote on Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 09:03:26PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Actually, you should not put `-l*' into LDFLAGS at all,
> > those belong into LIBS, *LDADD, or lib*_LIBADD (the latter being useful
> > for libtool libraries only).
> This is not how automake documents these variables. The doc (node
> "Libtool Flags") says that I can augment only two variables:
>   - libgnu_la_LIBADD, reserved for .lo or .la files, not -L, -l, -rpath 
> options,
>   - libgnu_la_LDFLAGS.

Oh.  I need to investigate why it says that; thanks for pointing this

> So, for libraries, there is no *_LDADD variable.

Yes, I don't think I claimed that.  (The part that begins wiht
`Actually', was meant generally, for both program and library targets.)

> And for executables, an *_LDADD variable exists, but the automake doc says
> the opposite of what you say:
>    `PROG_LDADD' is inappropriate for passing program-specific linker
>    flags (except for `-l', `-L', `-dlopen' and `-dlpreopen').  So, use the
>    `PROG_LDFLAGS' variable for this purpose.

In what way is this opposite to my statement?  -l is listed as exception
in parentheses.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]