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, > and only those without leading underscore in symbol names) and skips > resp. doesn't expose a failure elsewhere, but I think that should be > sufficient. 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([grep "^T argz_" stdout], [1]) +AT_CHECK([grep "^T _argz_" stdout], [1]) > + > +AT_CLEANUP This should be fine, because all global symbols exported from argz.o must be "lt__" prefixed. Will commit with these changes later today. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com
