Xiaofan Chen wrote: > > Bug report to dlltool (actually invalid as pointed by Kai). > > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14258 > > On the other hand, Ruben disagreed with Kai and he > thinks that the library name is optional.
This is not a subjective matter. MS is the authoritative specification, and in the specification the name is optional, so other tools implementing the same specification need to follow suit; not doing that is an unquestionable bug in dlltool. I guess that at some point the specification was different, and dlltool only implements the older version where the name wasn't optional. > In any case, the modification is benign and will work > with different version of dlltool, so I think it is good > to change libusb-1.0.def. Yes, I agree. Can you send the patch? Thanks! //Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
