* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 06:24:11PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> I'd like this to fail for me on darwin (more likely to notice it), so I
> will probably add:
>
> > +AT_CHECK([eval "$NM \"\$argz_o\" | $global_symbol_pipe"],
> > +[], [stdout], [ignore])
> > +AT_CHECK
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Yes, certainly. I think a NEWS entry would be good, too, as well as
> a test so we don't regress again. What do you think of this? You
> can squash it into your patch when you commit.
Thanks.
>
> The test doesn't work on many systems (only those that need argz.c,
> a
Charles Wilson skrev:
I also think that -winnt is too broad; and I'd really hate to see the
massive uglification of the libtool code -- and thousands of
configure.ac's out there -- that would ensue if -mingw* were
/officially/ overloaded to also represent the msvc-toolchain case.
Thanks a bunch
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:59:00PM CEST:
> Subject: [PATCH] Allow for extensions other than .a for preloaded modules.
>
> * libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4 (_LTDL_SETUP): Define LT_LIBEXT.
> * libltdl/ltdl.c (lt_dladvise_preload): Use it.
> Reported by Ralf Wildenhues.
OK, th
Hi Peter,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Aug 23, 2008 at 11:59:00PM CEST:
>
> On systems without argz we were exporting unmangled symbols argz_count
> and argz_add from libltdl. Not really a good idea. Rather than mangle
> the names, since we do not use either function, they were removed.
> Subj
>
> Duft Markus wrote:
>
> >>> Patches that do more good than harm are likely to be accepted.
> >> That's exactly the point i'm unsure about, if I do more harm than
> good
> >> or the other way round :) of course, for _me_ I do more good, but
> does
> >> it harm others that the hardcode test fail
Peter Rosin skrev:
I created a simple dll, exporting one function doing a printf (some random
libc function). When building this dll, MSVC8 generated a manifest, but I
instead embedded the manifest pointing to an older msvcr80.
I.e. Embedded this:
version='8.0.50608.0' processorArchitecture='x8
Duft Markus wrote:
>>> Patches that do more good than harm are likely to be accepted.
>> That's exactly the point i'm unsure about, if I do more harm than good
>> or the other way round :) of course, for _me_ I do more good, but does
>> it harm others that the hardcode test fails now?
Sorry, don'
