On Mar 29, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > Kelly O'Hair wrote: >> I'll admit that I'm not following this C code horribly well, but overall it >> does look much cleaner. >> As well as I can follow it, it looks good. >> >> In the Makefile, could we get some comments as to why the lib's are needed >> and also some >> comments as to what the delayload means and why it is important? I could >> guess, but I'd prefer >> some makefile comments to help the next poor soul looking at it. ;^) >> > Thanks Kelly. I'll add a comment to make this clearer athough this isn't > really new as there are other places in the build where /delayload is used > too.
Yes, I realize that. But in general, some of the past build issues were created because we have done a poor job of documenting what the makefiles are doing, so I'm just trying to encourage more makefile comments from now on. Sometimes the reasons for doing things can help determine a better future decision on removal or change. Just a sentence on why the delayload is needed here for this library, not what the delayload feature is. Or maybe a simple sentence on why these libraries are needed for this library and not all libraries. -kto > > -Alan.
