On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 9:49 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajja...@mit.edu> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Hendrik Leppkes <h.lepp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Ganesh Ajjanagadde >>> <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Fixes Ticket4673 >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Ganesh Ajjanagadde <gajjanaga...@gmail.com> >>>> --- >>>> library.mak | 2 +- >>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/library.mak b/library.mak >>>> index 29460b8..401da7c 100644 >>>> --- a/library.mak >>>> +++ b/library.mak >>>> @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ $(SUBDIR)$(SLIBNAME): $(SUBDIR)$(SLIBNAME_WITH_MAJOR) >>>> >>>> $(SUBDIR)$(SLIBNAME_WITH_MAJOR): $(OBJS) $(SLIBOBJS) >>>> $(SUBDIR)lib$(NAME).ver >>>> $(SLIB_CREATE_DEF_CMD) >>>> - $$(LD) $(SHFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $$(LD_O) $$(filter %.o,$$^) >>>> $(FFEXTRALIBS) >>>> + $$(LD) $(SHFLAGS) $(LDFLAGS) $(LDEXEFLAGS) $$(LD_O) $$(filter >>>> %.o,$$^) $(FFEXTRALIBS) >>>> $(SLIB_EXTRA_CMD) >>> >>> LDEXEFLAGS is clearly not the appropriate way to go about this. These >>> flags are for executables, not for shared libraries. >>> >>> - Hendrik >> >> Ok, so is it fine if this gets added to LDFLAGS instead? Or should a >> separate e.g LDLIBFLAGS be used? > > Attached is new patch that creates a LDLIBFLAGS.
Ping. > >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ffmpeg-devel mailing list >>> ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org >>> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
