bug#54020: Allow user-defined libtool options

Mike Frysinger <[email protected]>, 2024-01-13 07:19:
> On 15 Mar 2023 17:31, Bogdan wrote:
>>    Another patch from my side. This one makes it possible for users to
>> pass additional options to libtool in 'compile' mode. Fixes #54020.
>>
>>    Added documentation and a test case including the '-no-suppress'
>> option. All tests with 'lt' or 'libtool' in the name pass.
>>
>>    Feel free to rename the variables, I just came up with the names
>> LTCOMPILE_PREFLAGS and LTCOMPILE_POSTFLAGS, reflecting the positions
>> where the variables are put and the mode they're used in.
>
> why do we need LTCOMPILE_POSTFLAGS ?  isn't that just after the compile
> command ?  $obj_compile expands into e.g.
> 	\$(CC) @cpplike_flags \$(AM_CFLAGS) \$(CFLAGS)
>
> so if someone wants to add flags to C/etc..., they already have knobs
> to turn.
>
> which means this would simplify by only having one variable right ?
> AM_LTCOMPILE_FLAGS
> -mike


  Seems so, at least for now. At least for C compilers. At least until
$obj_compile becomes something else in the future or something more,
or even now contains (or will contain) other options after $(CFLAGS)
on the command line when using other compilers.
  For simplicity - yes, one flag like AM_LTCOMPILE_FLAGS should
suffice, at least now, as it seems. I've made pre- and post- flags for
better flexibility, to be future-proof.

--
Regards - Bogdan ('bogdro') D.                 (GNU/Linux & FreeDOS)
X86 assembly (DOS, GNU/Linux):    http://bogdro.evai.pl/index-en.php
Soft(EN): http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft  http://bogdro.evai.pl/soft4asm
www.Xiph.org  www.TorProject.org  www.LibreOffice.org  www.GnuPG.org