Hi Paul, many thanks for your response. Paul Smith (2021/01/14 08:56 -0500): > On Thu, 2021-01-14 at 12:56 +0100, Sébastien Hinderer wrote: > > My question is: between LIBS and LDLIBS, which one is a build system > > supposed to honour? > > "Supposed to" according to whom? Is there a standard or convention as there is for CFLAGS, say. > The GNU make manual, and the built-in GNU make rules, all use LDLIBS. > There is no mention of LIBS there. > > So, if you're following basic GNU make guidelines and you want to use, > or emulate, the built-in rules for GNU make you should use LDLIBS. > > If you're using other build environments they may have other rules or > traditions. Insofar as you're using those environments, you may want > to follow their traditional names. > > With respect to autoconf, libraries that are detected by configure > scripts as being required and present on the system are added to LIBS > so if you're writing a makefile to be used with autoconf (say you're > writing a Makefile.in) then you will want to include $(LIBS) in your > link line, so that the configure script can inform your makefile of > which libraries to link. That's my situation, yes. But what if the user wants to pass additional libraries at configure-time? Shoudl configure take such libraries from LIBS or LDLIBS? Or both? > You may also want to add $(LDLIBS) as well: perhaps this would be > useful for users who needed to add extra link libraries that the > configure script didn't find: it could be set on the make command line > for example. Well if configure had failed to detect, say, -lfoo, then I think I'd prefer to re-run it with a LIBS=-lfoo (or LDLIBS=-lfoo, that's my whole question) as arguemnt than running just make LDLIBS=-lfoo, because running configure has the advantage of storing the value in the build system, which make does not do as far as I know, at least not out of the box. Sébastien.
