gh-128354: Use LIBS consistently over LDFLAGS in library build checks
#128359
+41
−43
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
As noted in #128354, I audited all uses of
LIBSandLDFLAGSand adjusted checks using$<LIB>_LIBSto setLIBSinstead ofLDFLAGSand ensured we consistently ordered$LIBSbefore$<LIB>_LIBS. There are some other cases where a constant is added toLIBSthat I did not change here since it's a different pattern — we can consider those separately.I don't believe this needs a news entry, but defer to whatever the reviewer prefers.
I tested this locally on macOS and in a Linux container. It seems nice to get more test coverage too, perhaps via the build-bots?
In #95288, the ordering of
CFLAGSandCPPFLAGSwas fixed in a similar manner. I also noticed that some of these uses were introduced in #94802.