Charles Wilson wrote: > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_cwrapperexe_src) > [ltwrapper_debugprintf]: Renamed to... > [lt_debugprintf]: this. Only print messages if lt_debug != 0. > [file scope]: Add constants and variables to support new --lt-debug > option. Remove LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF macro. > [main]: Consolidate option parsing. Ensure first use of lt_debugprintf > occurs after option parsing. Add stanza to parse for --lt-debug and > set lt_debug variable. > [all]: Use lt_debugprintf () instead of LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF (()). > * tests/cwrapper.at: Add new tests for --lt-debug and -DLT_DEBUGWRAPPER. > --- > Another fragment arising from review of > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00031.html > > Lightly tested by running "tests/demo-shared.test tests/demo-make.test > tests/demo-exec.test" and cwrapper.at.
Ping x3? http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00039.html This has been in the cygwin distro for five months (over a year, in one form or another), and heavily tested. It's a long patch, but conceptually and mechanically quite simple. The rationale was determined via earlier on-list discussions -- I didn't just go off on a wild tangent and do this; I was instructed that this was a better approach than the one(s) I originally posted: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00036.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00043.html I'm going to be (re)raising all of my old, outstanding patches over the next week. Some, I think, are OK for immediate push, even 'relatively close to 2.2.8'. Others may be too big a change to consider at this point, and that's fine. Just let me know if you guys think a particular patch should be deferred until post-2.2.8 and I'll take it off the table. This one, I think is OK for pre-2.2.8 -- what do you guys think? OK to push? -- Chuck
