This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]


On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Mike Frysinger <> wrote:
> On Sunday 06 May 2012 19:53:53 Carlos O'Donell wrote:
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 6:51 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > The -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE flags are being added to the test-specific CFLAGS
>> > values when they should be the test-specific CPPFLAGS values. ?Otherwise
>> > the values don't override the user-specified CPPFLAGS and might end up
>> > breaking the tests.
>> Is this because the tests in question are being compiled with g++?
> no. ?the current compile order is:
> ? ? ? ?$(CC) $(CFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) ...
> and CFLAGS expands into:
> ? ? ? ?$(CFLAGS-config) ... $($(subdir)-CFLAGS) ... $(CFLAGS-$(<F)) ...
> and CPPFLAGS expands into:
> ? ? ? ?$(CPPFLAGS-config) ... $($(subdir)-CPPFLAGS) ... $(CPPFLAGS-$(<F)) ...
> so the user's settings are in CPPFLAGS-config, but the test-specific overrides
> are in CFLAGS-xxx, so the -D flags we want to use don't override the user's
> settings.

Shucks, that sucks. The intent is clear though the users flags should
be overridden by the test flags.

I'm OK with this patch provided you include a comment in
debug/Makefile stating why you can't just use CFLAGS.

Doesn't this effect *every* test that adds their own test-specific flags?

It seems like the compile order should expand into:


I'd like to see incremental progress, but fixing the testsuite first
is the right way forward.

Please check this in on Wednesday if nobody else objects.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]