On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:29:31PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Albert Chin wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >>Maybe we could mandate that option arguments to be passed through > >>libtool have to be mangled? So we'd accept, say, -Woff=all and > >>unmangle it before calling the compiler... > > > > We shouldn't force the users to change their behavior though. > > Okay. We can do both: libtool will keep a list of options it knows > about (along with details of whether they accept arguments), and pass > them through unchanged. As an interrim for users that want to get > options with arguments to the compiler with current libtool, they can > use a mangled format that will nag them to report their mangling usage > to bug-libtool for correction in the next release, but pass the unmangled > option to the compiler. Hopefully, the list of argument bearing options > that libtool needs to know about is reasonably small and slow changing. > > I am keen to come up with a low maintenance framework for tracking > these optioned arguments so that adding new ones is a snap. Searching > for the right case...esac and adding a new block is a PITA.
So you're saying we should not revert the patch? I think that's the most maintainable solution. Libtool has lived without the patch for this long. Adding a case statement to pass through known options will solve the problem of passing through 64-bit flags which should get us better behavior than before. Nirvana, passing through all unknown options, seems impossible. -- albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool