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 "@[EMAIL PROTECTED]";
fi'
+ reload_cmds=false
Why is this not set in _LT_CMD_RELOAD? That's where reload_cmds is set
(exceptions not invalidating the rule ;-)
Because - explanation retrofitted :-) - I only want to set it to false
for cc_basename matching cl*, and cc_basename isn't available in
_LT_CMD_RELOAD. So I added a call to _LT_CC_BASENAME to _LT_CMD_RELOAD,
is that ok.
No, sorry, that is not ok. We don't want _LT_CC_BASENAME to be expanded
more than once, and we don't want reload_cmds to depend on $CC at all if
we can avoid it.
I see two ways out: either go with your first patch, or not depend on
$cc_basename here. This is after all mostly a linker-only business.
Can we depend on $LD to decide?
One easy way to avoid cc_basename is to simply leave this for the next
non-gnu tool to fix, i.e.:
--- a/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
+++ b/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
@@ -3024,7 +3024,12 @@ case $reload_flag in
esac
reload_cmds='$LD$reload_flag -o $output$reload_objs'
case $host_os in
+ cygwin* | mingw* | pw32* | cegcc*)
+ if test "$GCC" != yes; then
+ reload_cmds=false
+ fi
+ ;;
etc
Cheers,
Peter
