[104258] trunk/base/src/port1.0/portconfigure.tcl

[Andrea D'Amore]

On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>> (I've been passing options to ld 134.9 on purpose to test this),
>> should we make that line
>>    default configure.ldflags   {"-L${prefix}/lib -headerpad_max_install_names"}
>> instead?
>
> I haven't noticed any ill effects from using -Wl,-headerpad_max_install_names; have you?

No, I haven't. I was trying to track down an issue with macports'
luajit and noticed this while reading the log.

Again, even if the man page doesn't mention it, and ld64 sources from
Apple doesn't contain the code to parse "-Wl" it seems to work, you
can countercheck by setting a -arch option in CFLAGS and then a
different one in LDFLAGS using "-Wl,-arch,", the linker will complain.

> Tons of projects misuse the *FLAGS variables and put them in the wrong places, so I'm sure there are projects that use LDFLAGS even when not linking. My understanding is that "-Wl," ensures that the flag will only get passed to the linker.

I know, lot of makefiles pass LDFLAGS to compile commands rather than
to link ones so that justifies the use of "-Wl," since it's a compiler
option.
Should we just follow the trend and use an undocumented option for the
sake of ease or should we switch ti -headerpad_max_install and
patch/report upstream those softwares who do not comply?

I'd prefer the latter unless somehow it turns out -Wl, is an official
ld option that is just not documented.


--
Andrea