Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Merge bitcoin-core#1546: cmake: Rename
SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS
and sw…
…itch to Bitcoin Core's approach 4706be2 cmake: Reimplement `SECP256K1_APPEND_CFLAGS` using Bitcoin Core approach (Hennadii Stepanov) c2764db cmake: Rename `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` to `SECP256K1_APPEND_CFLAGS` (Hennadii Stepanov) Pull request description: This PR address this hebasto/bitcoin#239 (comment): > For consistency with libsecp256k1: > > > > Is this code block supposed to achieve the same as our `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` (implemented by a user-defined function `all_targets_add_compile_options`) in libsecp256k1? > > > > > > It is. But this approach guaranties to override even options that are abstracted by CMake, for instance [bitcoin-core#157 (comment)](hebasto/bitcoin#157 (comment)). > > * If we agree that appending to rule variables is superior, should we also do this in libsecp256k1? > > * And/or should we rename the `SECP256K1_LATE_CFLAGS` variable to `APPEND_CFLAGS`? ACKs for top commit: real-or-random: utACK 4706be2 Tree-SHA512: 24603886c4d6ab4e31836a67d5759f9855a60c6c9d34cfc6fc4023bd309cd51c15d986ac0b77a434f9fdc6d5e97dcd3b8484d8f5ef5d8f840f47dc141de18084
- Loading branch information