On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:54:34 ChIIph wrote:
> On 03/06/10 23:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 24 February 2010 15:27:21 ChIIph wrote:
> >> Here are some minor changes I'd like to propose to flag-o-matic's
> >> _filter-var() to work properly with LDFLAGS.
> >> Without this, things like "-Wl,-O1,--as-needed" won't be affected by any
> >> kind of filter since there are no spaces to separate each flag.
> >> 
> >> I don't know of any better way to do this, but here's a patch that works
> >> just fine.
> > 
> > the func is used by other code where you dont want to screw with commas.
> 
> The commas are only added when there's LDFLAGS being changed.

you missed my point.  read the whole eclass -- this function isnt only used on 
LDFLAGS.  your patch opens the door to incorrectly split/mangle other 
variables.

> > plus, there are a few other ways to trick the system.
> > 
> > my opinion is still:
> >  - bypassing the system is sometimes useful
> >  - use separate -Wl flags and things just work
> 
> Ok, but in the default profiles LDFLAGS are separated with commas, so
> for that second opinion to be possible, I think that should be changed.

i really have no idea what you're talking about.  no default profile uses the 
multi-linker flag form.

> On the other hand, a lot of us use comma separated flags, so for all of
> us filter-ldflags doesn't work, and what I've modify doesn't mess with
> any of all the other function (or at least I haven't found the case in
> which it does).

then change your LDFLAGS

> Anyway, filter-ldflags doesn't work like it is right now, I'm not saying
> use _my_ code, but use whatever you think it's best to fix this.

i dont see any bug so you're going to have to be more specific
-mike