Hi Ralf, Den 2010-09-24 06:20 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > Hello Peter, > > * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:44:43AM CEST: >> need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC. I think the test >> is there to ensure that "weird" systems continue to work even >> if the testsuite is running on a "normal" system. "weird" in >> this case are systems with need_lib_prefix set to "unknown" and >> "normal" are those with it set to "no". However, there are >> even weirder systems where need_lib_prefix should perhaps be >> set to "never" (i.e. MSVC) but that currently simply sets it >> to "no". "never" would perhaps be more appropriate since preopen >> doesn't work right if libs have a lib prefix. I think OS/2 is >> affected in the same way as MSVC, but I have no means to test >> that. >> >> The below patch makes the need_lib_prefix.at test skip for the >> even weirder systems, i.e. those where libname_spec does not >> prefix library names with lib. >> >> Ok to push? >> >> >> You may want to compare this patch with thread >> >> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-01/msg00174.html >> >> which instead makes the test pass for the even weirder systems, >> but I don't think that is really desired. Why should the code be >> changed to accommodate a contrived test case? Because this would >> never happen in the wild, right? > > The part about this patch which I'm unsure about is this: > > Does the testsuite otherwise cover well enough the fact that users may > name their modules with or without leading 'lib' prefix (and with .la or > .dll or .so suffix or so)? > > IOW, I'd like to be sure we're not hiding anything here.
But that is not a problem with *this* patch. That's one of those gigantic tasks that Chuck mentions from time to time. This is not like the low max_cmd_len test. In both cases the libtool script is rigged to simulate weird conditions, but the need_lib_prefix test is rigging something that never happens on platforms that never create a lib prefix. You should also not confuse this prefix with the name of the .la file, the .la files are always allowed to have a lib prefix, this is about the real libraries. We have plenty of tests that create -modules named module.la without the prefix, for example dlloader-api.la. I'm not sure what you mean by users naming their modules with various suffixes, as they must be named .la? I get the feeling that I'm saying things that you already know, so I'm probably missing something. What? > And yes, I think (part of) the log entry from the initial test addition > probably deserves to be a comment in the test, so we don't have to look > it up again. Probably a good idea. I'll add some words before pushing anything, but I'd like this settled before doing anything further with the patch. Cheers, Peter