On Wednesday 19 October 2011, Peter Rosin wrote: > Stefano Lattarini skrev 2011-09-03 09:41: > > For what concerns this: are you willing to re-submit your patch > > series about AM_PROG_AR to automake-patches? I will try hard to > > look into it, if you are willing to do the required testing and > > to patiently explain to me the details I won't undertand (and > > be warned that there will probably be many of them, since I'm a > > total Windows noob). > > It is not a patch series, it is single patch that adds a new > macro that is modeled after AM_PROG_CC_C_O, some tests to catch > regressions and a plethora of trivial updates to the testsuite. > But then we should also add a new `windows' (or better `msvc'?) warning category, so that we won't force users not interested in MSVC portability to choose between a mandated use of the new macro (which would probably be perceived as gratuitous bloating) and the forsaking of all the portability warnings (which is bad, bad, bad). I don't care whether this new warning category is introduced by a preparatory patch or by a follow-up one, as long as it's in place before a merge to `maint' takes place.
> Ah, and the little portability warning of course, triggered when > building libraries w/o AM_PROG_AR in configure... > Yep, see above. And today I agree with you that this warning should be enabled by `-Wall'. > Anyway, I have rebased the patch on top of the current msvc branch > and have added fixes for fallout in a few new tests etc. > > The testsuite is ccccrrrraaaaaawwwwllllliiinnnnngggggg along, I'll > post the updated patch as soon as it finishes satisfactory. I just > wanted to post this in case it improves the odds of making the > release... > I'd give at least three weeks before the 1.11.2 beta(s), so there no need to hurry excessively. But thanks for the heads-up. Regards, Stefano
