On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>Can we see testsuite output for Libtool 2.1b (see README) for a system > >>that needs a change here? This failure should be exposed already. Esp. > >>the stresstest should expose most use cases here. > > I disagree with applying the patch unless you show that it improves > testsuite results. And also I want to know about other failures. > So please show results before/after the patch. Thanks.
The attached file libtool-results.orig contains the results before the patch and the file libtool-results after it. The last attached file is the diff against libtool 2.1b file libltdl/m4/libtool.m4. I have 3 failures before the patch and 2 failures after it. Regards, Aleksey
libtool-results.orig
Description: Binary data
libtool-results
Description: Binary data
--- libtool.m4.orig 2008-01-30 18:02:43.000000000 +0600
+++ libtool.m4 2008-02-24 19:30:37.000000000 +0600
@@ -4343,7 +4343,7 @@
if test "x$supports_anon_versioning" = xyes; then
_LT_TAGVAR(archive_expsym_cmds, $1)='echo "{ global:" > $output_objdir/$libname.ver~
- cat $export_symbols | sed -e "s/\(.*\)/\1;/" >> $output_objdir/$libname.ver~
+ cat $export_symbols | sed -e "s/\(.*\)/'"$ac_symprfx"'\1;/" >> $output_objdir/$libname.ver~
echo "local: *; };" >> $output_objdir/$libname.ver~
$CC '"$tmp_sharedflag""$tmp_addflag"' $libobjs $deplibs $compiler_flags ${wl}-soname $wl$soname ${wl}-version-script ${wl}$output_objdir/$libname.ver -o $lib'
fi
_______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
