svn commit: r307045 - head/Mk

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Tue, 6 Nov 2012, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>>   This extends revision r246991 (2010-01-02) and should not be necessary
>>   in most cases since LDFLAGS already covers linking, but one can always
> 
> Rather than adding this flag to CXXFLAGS why not drop it from CFLAGS?
> There is no place for linker options in compilation flags.

Yes, but, there is an amazing lot of broken software out there.  And,
unlike compilation errors, failure to locate run-time libraries (or
the right ones) is a lot harder to detect and we currently don't have
a way to do so automatically.

>>   compile and link in one swoop, and this makes things consistent between
>>   C and C++.
> This is a strange argument.  When one does compilation and linking in 
> one swoop one uses both CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS and LDFLAGS.  In non-broken 
> software there is never a dependency on linker flags auto-magically 
> appearing in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS.

If we'd only be dealing with non-broken software (or well maintained
ports), I could have saved a couple of days of FreeBSD work this past
year alone. :-/

I'm not opposed to removing this from both CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS, it
"just" needs committment by all port maintainers to fix, if not test,
their ports accordingly.  That's the crux I see.

Gerald