* Peter Rosin wrote on Sun, Aug 31, 2008 at 09:11:51AM CEST: > Den 2008-08-31 07:29, skrev Ralf Wildenhues: >> >> thank you for starting a new thread on this. The other, monster thread, >> scares me a bit too much for wanting to dig through it. > > Should I repost the pending patches as new fresh individual > messages?
That would certainly help. Even cooler would be if you posted a link to the post of the patch within the thread too, so I could read myself up from there. (When reviewing, I try to at least skim the discussion pertaining to a thread, in order to check that the discussed issues have been addressed.) Up to you if you want to take the effort though. >> * Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:26:45PM CEST: >>> During my exercise with libsndfile I found a problem with >>> the manifest embedding code. $output may or may not contain >>> the trailing $EXEEXT, so the code in $postlink_cmds has >>> to handle both cases (or some c14n has to be added to ltmain). >> >> Is this really a problem with the libtool variable exeext not being set >> correctly, or with the libtool script being passed '-o prog' vs. '-o >> prog.exe'? > > The patch solves the latter, i.e. '-o prog' vs. '-o prog.exe'. I > have not seen any problem with exeext not being correct. Hmm, ok. >> If it's a problem with exeext not being set correctly, then shouldn't we >> fix that? Markus Duft posted a patch for that on this list before, >> which I've never found the time to evaluate. >> >> Also, this needs testsuite exposure if not already done. > > By "this", I assume you mean a check if both '-o prog' and > "-o prog$EXEEXT" work? Yes. At least if such a test is easily possible. > Should that test do what is needed to > expose a failure to embed the manifest? I.e. do you want the > test to install both progs and then try to run them? If a runtime test is the only way to find out if things went alright, then I guess that would be best. In this case the test should ensure to SKIP for cross compilation. It's also OK to SKIP the test generally when CL is not used, I guess. Cheers, Ralf
