From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: "guile-config link" reports LDFLAGS it has been compiled with Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:21:40 +0100 Message-ID: <87pruwh4hn.fsf@gnu.org> References: <47653CEA.9090601@gentoo.org> <878x1kijzd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1203204143 1882 80.91.229.12 (16 Feb 2008 23:22:23 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:22:23 +0000 (UTC) To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 17 00:22:46 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1JQWMn-0002DF-96 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 17 Feb 2008 00:22:45 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JQWMJ-0000ec-04 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:22:15 -0500 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JQWM3-0000Yv-HO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:21:59 -0500 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JQWLz-0000Vv-Mx for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:21:58 -0500 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JQWLz-0000Vp-Jm for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:21:55 -0500 Original-Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JQWLz-0002W4-7u for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 18:21:55 -0500 Original-Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1JQWLr-0005bR-9K for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:21:47 +0000 Original-Received: from reverse-83.fdn.fr ([80.67.176.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:21:47 +0000 Original-Received: from ludo by reverse-83.fdn.fr with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:21:47 +0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-Lines: 26 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: reverse-83.fdn.fr X-Revolutionary-Date: 29 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Pluvi=F4se?= an 216 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEB1F5364 X-PGP-Key: http://www.laas.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 821D 815D 902A 7EAB 5CEE D120 7FBA 3D4F EB1F 5364 X-OS: i686-pc-linux-gnu User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:8Yw7W+hnrDB8wocpGpFTN1MV3R4= X-detected-kernel: by monty-python.gnu.org: Linux 2.6, seldom 2.4 (older, 4) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:7020 Archived-At: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > "Marijn Schouten (hkBst)" writes: >> dnl Tell guile-config what flags guile users should compile and link with. >> -GUILE_LIBS="$LDFLAGS $LIBS" >> +GUILE_LIBS="$LIBS" >> GUILE_CFLAGS="$PTHREAD_CFLAGS" >> AC_SUBST(GUILE_LIBS) >> AC_SUBST(GUILE_CFLAGS) > Indeed, you're right. > > Conversely, I think `GUILE_CFLAGS' must include `$CPPFLAGS' since this > may include `-I' flags that are required (e.g., `-I/path/to/gmp'). Wait, no: the argument for `$CPPFLAGS' also applies to `$LDFLAGS'. That is, if `-L' flags are passed through `$LDFLAGS' to `configure', like `-L/path/to/gmp', then they must be reported by "guile-config link". Admittedly, it has the undesirable side-effect of reporting completely unrelated link flags as well. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we could reliably filter `$LDFLAGS'. Thanks, Ludovic.