Hi Charles, * Charles Wilson wrote on Sun, May 25, 2008 at 06:13:04AM CEST: > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_cwrapperexe_src) > [file scope]: Defined all option strings in terms of macro > LTWRAPPER_OPTION_PREFIX. Similarly defined all option string > lengths in terms of macro LTWRAPPER_OPTION_PREFIX_LENGTH. > [main]: Modified option parsing algorithm to pass -- on to > target, and to not stop processing arguments when -- is seen. > Added check for unrecognized options in reserved namespace > defined by LTWRAPPER_OPTION_PREFIX.
This patch looks like an improvement to me. What I don't quite understand is that ... > As discussed here: > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-05/msg00067.html ... this message specifies that the first argument not matching --lt- should end parsing, whereas your patch parses all arguments. Also, it does argument parsing twice, needlessly. Now, I'm not caught up on my mail backlog yet, so I may just have missed the message where you guys have agreed on the other way; so please only bother explaining why if that hasn't happened yet. (Otherwise I suppose I will eventually get to it.) Other than that, the only thing this patch is missing is a testsuite test ensuring that "--" really is passed through. (Such an addition is preapproved.) > Passes all but three tests on cygwin: the new-testsuite 25/72 that > we are used to, and one new failure: demo-exec after demo-shared. FWIW, with linux -> mingw cross, I get failures of demo-hardcode (trivial bug), depdemo-relink (nontrivial), and the two new DESTDIR tests (currently 38, 39). None of these look like new failures, in fact the number of new test failures has considerably decreased since I last looked which is really nice. :-) > It is interesting that this failure, long present on mingw, has now > shown up on cygwin. I traced it, and it is due to trying to populate > the lt__PROGRAM__LTX_preloaded_symbols[] array using an > 'nm | $global_symbols_pipe' on a DLL, instead of a static library or > import library. Yes, that needs to be looked at separately. Thanks for all your work on this! Cheers, Ralf
