[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: LD not precious?
From: |
Ralf Wildenhues |
Subject: |
Re: LD not precious? |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:49:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-10-28) |
* Philip A. Prindeville wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 09:35:59PM CET:
> On 01/14/2010 12:10 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Philip A. Prindeville wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:43:49AM CET:
> >>
> >> Is that an oversight? I ask because in a cross-compilation
> >> environment, getting CC and LD right are equally important.
> >
> > Sure, but why would $LD be more important in cross compilation setups
> > than in native ones? The cross-compiler usually calls the right linker.
> Because I'm encountering Makefiles that call $(LD) directly, and
> default LD to "ld" unless you explicitly override it (and not setting
> it to $(CC)).
Then that is a simple portability issue you should take up with the
authors of those Makefiles' input files. They should add something like
AC_CHECK_TOOL([LD], [ld])
to their configure.ac, just like it is necessary to use AC_PROG_CC in
order to use $CC.
Cheers,
Ralf
- LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Philip A. Prindeville, 2010/01/14
- Re: LD not precious?, Eric Blake, 2010/01/14