Hi Philip, * Philip A. Prindeville wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 02:43:49AM CET: > Silly question, but I was working on a particular project > (dahdi-tools) and I noticed that the value of LD that was passed to > "configure" didn't get saved into "makeopts". > > I hacked the configure.ac file as: [...] > +AC_SUBST(LD) > + [...] > and this seems to work, but this left me wondering why "LD" isn't a > precious variable, just like "CC" is. First off, a naming nit: in the Autoconf lingo, AC_SUBST makes a variable be "substituted", i.e., occurrences of @LD@ in <file>.in for <file> listed in an AC_CONFIG_FILES macro are replaced by config.status with the value of $LD. "Precious" variables on the other hand are those substituted variables which are also saved and restored for an eventual `./config.status --recheck' triggering another configure run. Now, by default, LD is neither precious nor substituted, because nowadays the linker is rarely needed directly: most packages come by with using the compiler driver for linking, who then calls the linker. Libtool, by the way, uses $LD sometimes, and AC_PROG_LIBTOOL causes $LD to be substituted. > Looking at the contents of /usr/share/autoconf/autoconf/ for autoconf > 2.63, I'm not seeing \<LD\> anywhere. > > Is that an oversight? I ask because in a cross-compilation > environment, getting CC and LD right are equally important. Sure, but why would $LD be more important in cross compilation setups than in native ones? The cross-compiler usually calls the right linker. Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@xxxxxxx http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
