Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:36:14AM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
--- a/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
+++ b/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
@@ -4821,6 +4821,7 @@ _LT_EOF
mt -manifest "@[EMAIL PROTECTED]" -outputresource:"@[EMAIL
PROTECTED]";
$RM "
On 16 Aug 2008, at 17:25, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
late
;o)
second round of review:
+ archive_name = MALLOC (char, LT_STRLEN (name) + 3);
This should probably be
LT_STRLEN (name) + LT_STRLEN (".a") + 1
except that...
- if (tryall_dlopen (&newha
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> One could also make the test XFAIL. However, the test exercises many
> useful bits, more than just the part that is failing, and most other
> bits are more important. This is why I think we should not go that way.
>
> OK to apply?
Yes.
Thank you.
Peter
--
Peter O'Go
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 11:36:14AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
>>
>> Please add "Set to @code{false} on systems that cannot create
>> reloadable objects" to the reload_cmds documentation in libtool.texi.
>
> I used @samp(false) instead, as that seemed to be the usage for
> co
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 01:44:30PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
>> * Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:40:17PM CEST:
>>> LIBA_SCOPE int (*const v12) (void);
>>
>> Why doesn't this one need LIBA_SCOPE_VAR annotation only?
>> (I guess I'm to search for the answer to
Hi Gary,
late second round of review:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:32:13PM CEST:
> * libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4 (LTDL_INIT): Check for a libltdl that
> provides lt_dladvise_preopen when deciding if installed libltdl
> is 'new enough'.
> * libltdl/libltdl/lt__private.h (lt__advise):
OK, I've looked at this a bit. With the failure of the lt_dlopenadvise
test, Gary's patch does not introduce a regression: even branch-1-5
libtool already wrongly chose to link against ./.libs/libpreload.so.
So, since my aim ATM is to stabilize, not to fix all bugs, I propose to
punt. This patch
