[ dropped libtool@ ] * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:33:44PM CEST: > > Is there any harm in passing them to the linking step? > > Yes. Let me answer with a patch to add a FAQ and FAQ entry. > OK to commit?
No more feedback, I've thus pushed this patch ... > Add FAQ, and FAQ entry for flags stripped at library link time. > > * doc/libtool.texi (FAQ, Stripped link flags): New nodes. > (Wrapper executables): Replace bug address with macro. > (Compile mode, Link mode): Document `-Wc,' and `-Xcompiler ' > semantics better. > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_mode_link): Rewrite comment > for the flags that are passed through. > Prompted by reports from Simon Richter <simon.rich...@...>, > Török Edwin <edwinto...@...> and > Åke Sandgren <ake.sandg...@...>. > --- a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh > +++ b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh > @@ -4489,17 +4489,17 @@ func_mode_link () [...] > + # Flags to be passed through unchanged, with rationale: > + # -64, -mips[0-9] enable 64-bit mode for the SGI compiler > + # -r[0-9][0-9]* specify processor for the SGI compiler > + # -xarch=*, -xtarget=* enable 64-bit mode for the Sun compiler > + # +DA*, +DD* enable 64-bit mode for the HP compiler > + # -q* compiler args for the IBM compiler > + # -m*, -t[45]*, -txscale* architecture-specific flags for GCC > + # -F/path path to uninstalled frameworks, gcc on darwin > + # -p, -pg, --coverage, -fprofile-* profiling flag for GCC ... after fixing this typo s/flag/flags/ > + # @file GCC response files > + # -tp=* Portland pgcc target processor selection Support for -flto hopefully to come this weekend.
