freetype_versioncheck failed to compile

David Katleman david.katleman at
Thu Jan 5 21:02:32 UTC 2012

On 1/5/2012 12:46 PM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
> I got a little carried away... but here is what I came up with:
> Just got rid of CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG and also fixed a few indentation annoyances.
> The CC_OBJECT_OUTPUT_FLAG is used quite a bit in other places, but
> the CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG variable was not used consistently.
> Windows has multiple ways to specify the names. So I just got rid of it, everyone is explicit now.

Change looks fine, and eliminates a seldom used variable 


> On Jan 4, 2012, at 6:50 PM, Jonathan Lu wrote:
>> Hi Kelly,
>> Thanks for reviewing,
>> On 01/05/2012 06:35 AM, Kelly O'Hair wrote:
>>> The change sounds reasonable, but it's a change to something I have always hated, so it's somewhat distasteful to me
>>> because of that. Having the makefiles build and run an application as part of a sanity check just seems so...
>>> what is the word....  silly?  :^(
>>> I had hoped that we could just have the sanity check inspect the freetype headers and libraries to
>>> insure the right version, not have to build an application just so we could run it to get the version number.
>>> On the other hand, building this little app is a way to verify that the freetype library links ok
>> Agree, have you got any good ideas about inspecting the headers and libraries? especially for the integrity of a binary library, 'nm libaaa' ?
>>> So to the question of whether this change is ok, basically yes,  but why was this line added:
>>>    53     CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG= -o
>>> ???
>> This line is added because there may not be a definition of CC_PROGRAM_OUTPUT_FLAG in jdk/make/common/Defs-<platform>.gmk for all Unix's, so this line will make the little application pass the compilation even without a Defs-<platform>.gmk.
>> And if this change is OK, do you plan to push it?
>>> -kto

More information about the build-dev mailing list