Re: -Wl,-L and -L

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost>]

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 12:27:59PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <20090815012538.GA1558%britannica.bec.de@localhost>,
> Joerg Sonnenberger  <joerg%britannica.bec.de@localhost> wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >while working on the pkgsrc wrappers I started to wonder why one would
> >ever want to use -Wl,-L instead of plain -L. I can't think of a reason,
> >but maybe someone else can enlighten me? E.g. why should it be left
> >alone instead of converting it to the plain -L?
> 
> It is not a big problem. -L has always been undestood by the compiler driver
> as a linker flag, but -R has not (some implementations have it, some have not)
> so you are forced to use -Wl,-R but not forced to use -Wl,-L. Some people
> prefer -Wl,-L for symmetry and clarity, but I think it is just clutter.

I am going to convert the various rpath options to the canonical form as
it makes handling them in the backend (e.g. for the xlC wrapper) easier.
For the same reason I am asking if it makes sense to do that for -L and
-Wl,-L. I thought so, but wasn't sure.

Joerg