[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 13:13:35 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] add musl-clang, a wrapper for system clang
installs
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:11:18PM +0200, Shiz wrote:
> > On 29 May 2015, at 19:03, Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
> >
> > This logic looks wrong. For example, "-L foo" would result in input=1,
> > no? And same for any other options with arguments.
> >
> > Rich
>
> Hmm, I’m afraid you’re right. I’ll need to rethink this approach...
> I was slightly annoyed by it being needed in the first place, but there’s no
> other way from what I could see than these markers to figure out what comes
> from a user and what doesn’t, since clang re-orders -l and -L arguments.
> If they weren’t needed I could just move -lc to the linker wrapper...
What if you add a bogus prefix to all -l and -L options provided by
the user? Then the wrapper can remove any -l or -L options without the
prefix, then remove the prefix from the ones that remain.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
