Hello Vincent, * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 12:08:29PM CEST: > I would like to commit the patch quoted below, on the way of support for > LTO with GCC. For that, I need to know from somebody who is willing to > help out with the Windows CE port of Libtool whether the #defines used > in the patch are sufficient and correct. > > This is > <http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/10794/focus=9769>.
Libtool has no wince maintainer. If we cannot even get simple questions answered about WinCE, then we cannot ensure to keep Libtool working on this system. Questions answered are a necessary, but not necessarily sufficient condition for keeping a port working. Regular regression testing is usually necessary as well, even if there are none to few changes specific to some port. For systems Charles, the Peters, Bob, Gary, and I have access to, regular testing is pretty much a given, which sums up to something like 3 dozen different setups at least (users do more testing, but I have less of an overview off-hand). Right now I have one simple question: can I assume that the preprocessor symbol _WIN32_WCE is defined for wince code, and usually not defined for non-wince code? This question is the only impediment for this particular patch. Of course, a regression test of Libtool with this patch on wince would be much better even. Thank you, Ralf
