On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:59:25 ChIIph wrote:
> On 03/07/10 14:50, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 March 2010 12:54:34 ChIIph wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> 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.
> 
> I know, what I wanted to say is that I've tested those changes with more
> than filter-ldflags funtion, and I proposed it here because it works in
> every case.

no, it really doesnt.  it took me two seconds to put together an example where 
your change corrupted CFLAGS.  an unlikely value, but a valid value 
nonetheless, which means your proposal is unacceptable on that merit alone.

> >>> 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.
> 
> grep -nR LDFLAGS /usr/portage/profiles/*
> (...)
> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/make.defaults:53:LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1"
> (...)

how is that relevant ?  people use `filter-flags -Wl,-O1`, they dont use 
`filter-flags -O1`.  this is not multiple linker flags combined into one -Wl.
-mike