* Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 11:43:41PM CEST: > Den 2010-06-23 20:29 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > >Please rewrite this ChangeLog entry to be a good one, mentioning the > >macros you change, the systems, compilers affected, in the format > >used otherwise in the ChangeLog. > > Ouch. That was a pretty bad entry indeed. Is this good enough? > > 2010-06-23 Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> > > Add MSVC support. > * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_SYS_DYNAMIC_LINKER) > (_LT_LINKER_SHLIBS, _LT_LANG_CXX_CONFIG) [mingw, cygwin]: Add > support for the Microsoft C/C++ Compiler (cl) relying on help > from the compile script in Automake. > * NEWS: Add note of the above.
Yes. > >>--- a/NEWS > >>+++ b/NEWS > >>+* Changes in supported systems or compilers: > >>+ - Initial support for the Microsoft C/C++ Compiler w/o cccl. > > > >Please no abbreviations like w/o here, this is text for the user. Also, > >the 'compile' script is needed now, no? > > How about this: > > * Changes in supported systems or compilers: > - Initial support for the Microsoft C/C++ Compiler with help from > (proposed changes to) the compile script in Automake. > > And then fiddle the NEWS entry to specify the needed Automake version > when one is known? How about "for unreleased Automake 1.12", that should be safe. > >It strikes me as a bit inconsistent that here, the default case will be > >g++, and above, the default case is non-GCC. I'm not actually sure > >which is better, in the presence of other compilers users want to see > >supported, but I think we should be consistent in handling between C and > >C++. > > It's just the way it is. In the C case, there is a big divider between > GNU and non-GNU. For C++ it all jumbled together. "Fixing" that is out > of scope I presume. The difference is perhaps even more visible by the > fact that the cccl port (if it even deserves to be called a port) is > not C++ aware AFAICT. OK. Thanks, Ralf
