[llvm-gcc][patch] Use LDFLAGS from configure

The attached patch permits setting the LDFLAGS variable in the call to
configure. This is the behavior of configure on gcc trunk. Not sure
why llvm-gcc is different.

This is necessary for building llvm-gcc in cases where some libraries
are in strange places:

CPPFLAGS="-I/foo/include" LDFLAGS="-L/foo/lib" configure ....

Cheers,

ldflags.patch (343 Bytes)

Makes sense to me. If you built with and without LDFLAGS enabled should probably just commit it - or do you need someone to commit for you?

-eric

Makes sense to me. If you built with and without LDFLAGS enabled
should probably just commit it - or do you need someone to commit for
you?

I can commit it. I was just not sure if this was an intentional
difference. I am running a bootstrap without a LDFLAGS. Will commit if
it pass.

-eric
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev@cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Cheers,

I can commit it. I was just not sure if this was an intentional
difference. I am running a bootstrap without a LDFLAGS. Will commit if
it pass.

The bootstrap was OK, but I am getting the following error trying to commit:

svn: Commit failed (details follow):
svn: MKACTIVITY of
'/svn/llvm-project/!svn/act/05b8ac29-8fd9-4f8e-9c3c-d39e89ade19f': 400
Bad Request (http://llvm.org)

Any idea what could be wrong?

Cheers,

Nope, not really... but google found:

   http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?f=152&t=123806

for me. Another post suggests using https instead of http.

Any yet another suggests antivirus software can muck with it, if running Kaspersky, add svnclient to the Kaspersky Trust Region. :slight_smile: Whee...

for me. Another post suggests using https instead of http.

That was it. No idea why my client was set up with http.

committed.

Thanks,