[PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
Hi!
This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it
to go in before the release. So, no rush.
The patch was previously discussed here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html
and it is on the pr-msvc-support branch as commit
fbc144008bd66848111fb8ef2d7293b33957ea1a (even though that commit
happened by mistake and was one of the very unpolished ones).
Ok to push after the 2.4 release? (or before if Gary is ok with that)
(with this patch and the other one making need_lib_prefix.at skip,
there are no more fails for MSVC/MSYS. Boggle!)
Cheers,
Peter
From bff43a89559b2be74250d990e18b1b64ec073b3a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se
Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:58:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
* libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_LINKER_SHLIBS)
[cygwin, mingw, pw32, cegcc] cl*, reload_cmds: Indicate that
reloadable objects do not work.
* tests/duplicate_conv.at: Skip last test if reloadable
objects do not work.
* doc/libtool.texi (libtool script contents) reload_cmds:
Document how to indicate that reloadable objects do not work.
Signed-off-by: Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se
---
ChangeLog | 11 +++
doc/libtool.texi|3 ++-
libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 |5 +
tests/duplicate_conv.at |4
4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/ChangeLog b/ChangeLog
index e011a9e..7ecc325 100644
--- a/ChangeLog
+++ b/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,14 @@
+2010-09-22 Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se
+
+ tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
+ * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_LINKER_SHLIBS)
+ [cygwin, mingw, pw32, cegcc] cl*, reload_cmds: Indicate that
+ reloadable objects do not work.
+ * tests/duplicate_conv.at: Skip last test if reloadable
+ objects do not work.
+ * doc/libtool.texi (libtool script contents) reload_cmds:
+ Document how to indicate that reloadable objects do not work.
+
2010-09-21 Peter Rosin p...@lysator.liu.se
msvc: eliminate spaces in the library search path.
diff --git a/doc/libtool.texi b/doc/libtool.texi
index 0d3ff7f..7688871 100644
--- a/doc/libtool.texi
+++ b/doc/libtool.texi
@@ -6767,7 +6767,8 @@ replaced by the toolchain format of @code{@@OUTPUT@@}.
Normally disabled
@defvar reload_cmds
@defvarx reload_flag
-Commands to create a reloadable object.
+Commands to create a reloadable object. Set @code{reload_cmds} to
+...@samp{false} on systems that cannot create reloadable objects.
@end defvar
@defvar runpath_var
diff --git a/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 b/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
index a048b1f..d812584 100644
--- a/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
+++ b/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
@@ -3081,6 +3081,11 @@ case $reload_flag in
esac
reload_cmds='$LD$reload_flag -o $output$reload_objs'
case $host_os in
+ cygwin* | mingw* | pw32* | cegcc*)
+if test $GCC != yes; then
+ reload_cmds=false
+fi
+;;
darwin*)
if test $GCC = yes; then
reload_cmds='$LTCC $LTCFLAGS -nostdlib ${wl}-r -o $output$reload_objs'
diff --git a/tests/duplicate_conv.at b/tests/duplicate_conv.at
index 83d5144..77496d0 100644
--- a/tests/duplicate_conv.at
+++ b/tests/duplicate_conv.at
@@ -25,6 +25,8 @@
AT_SETUP([duplicate convenience archive names])
AT_KEYWORDS([libtool])
+eval `$LIBTOOL --config | sed -n '/^reload_cmds=/,/^$/p'`
+
# We create two convenience archives with the same name, and _also_
# containing an object with the same name. This is necessary to detect
# the failure with both 1.5.22 and HEAD, since the latter does not (did
@@ -75,6 +77,8 @@ AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=link $CC $CFLAGS $LDFLAGS -o
main$EXEEXT main.$OBJEXT
LT_AT_EXEC_CHECK([./main],[0],[ignore],[ignore])
$LIBTOOL --mode=clean rm -f libcee.la
+AT_CHECK([test x$reload_cmds = xfalse exit 77], [1])
+
# Test whether this works with reloadable objects as well.
AT_CHECK([$LIBTOOL --mode=link --tag=CC $CC $CFLAGS $LDFLAGS -o cee.$OBJEXT
c.lo a/liba.la b/liba.la],
[0], [ignore], [ignore])
--
1.7.1
Re: [PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
Hi Peter, On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote: This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it to go in before the release. So, no rush. The patch was previously discussed here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html and it is on the pr-msvc-support branch as commit fbc144008bd66848111fb8ef2d7293b33957ea1a (even though that commit happened by mistake and was one of the very unpolished ones). Ok to push after the 2.4 release? (or before if Gary is ok with that) (with this patch and the other one making need_lib_prefix.at skip, there are no more fails for MSVC/MSYS. Boggle!) Sure, go ahead. And please add a `no test failures with msvc/msys' entry to NEWS while you're there. * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_LINKER_SHLIBS) [cygwin, mingw, pw32, cegcc] cl*, reload_cmds: Indicate that reloadable objects do not work. * tests/duplicate_conv.at: Skip last test if reloadable objects do not work. * doc/libtool.texi (libtool script contents) reload_cmds: Document how to indicate that reloadable objects do not work. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org) PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Hi Peter, On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote: This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it to go in before the release. So, no rush. The patch was previously discussed here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html and it is on the pr-msvc-support branch as commit fbc144008bd66848111fb8ef2d7293b33957ea1a (even though that commit happened by mistake and was one of the very unpolished ones). Ok to push after the 2.4 release? (or before if Gary is ok with that) (with this patch and the other one making need_lib_prefix.at skip, there are no more fails for MSVC/MSYS. Boggle!) Sure, go ahead. And please add a `no test failures with msvc/msys' entry to NEWS while you're there. I assume you mean that both patches are OK to push then? Cheers, Peter
Re: [PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
Den 2010-09-22 10:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Hi Peter, On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:15, Peter Rosin wrote: Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Hi Peter, On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:02, Peter Rosin wrote: This is fixing a testsuite issue for MSVC, and I don't need it to go in before the release. So, no rush. The patch was previously discussed here: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-08/msg00051.html and it is on the pr-msvc-support branch as commit fbc144008bd66848111fb8ef2d7293b33957ea1a (even though that commit happened by mistake and was one of the very unpolished ones). Ok to push after the 2.4 release? (or before if Gary is ok with that) (with this patch and the other one making need_lib_prefix.at skip, there are no more fails for MSVC/MSYS. Boggle!) Sure, go ahead. And please add a `no test failures with msvc/msys' entry to NEWS while you're there. I assume you mean that both patches are OK to push then? Both patches? I saw only the one attached to the mail I replied to. That one is fine to push, yes. What's the other one? The one I mentioned in the same sentence where I said no more fails, i.e the other one making need_lib_prefix.at skip. See this thread: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2010-09/msg00201.html Hmm, but no more fails is a truth with modification. The *new* testsuite has no unexpected fails. There are still a bunch of needed __declspec(dllimport) in the old testsuite, and perhaps there are some other fails as well. Not sure actually, I'm not normally running it. Given that, I'll hold back on any bragging in NEWS... Cheers, Peter
Re: [PATCH] tests: reloadable objects do not work on MSVC, SKIP test.
Den 2010-09-22 10:24 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: On 22 Sep 2010, at 15:15, Peter Rosin wrote: Den 2010-09-22 10:11 skrev Gary V. Vaughan: Sure, go ahead. And please add a `no test failures with msvc/msys' entry to NEWS while you're there. I assume you mean that both patches are OK to push then? Both patches? I saw only the one attached to the mail I replied to. That one is fine to push, yes. What's the other one? I have now pushed the patch that you did see. Thanks for the review! Still waiting on the other one, but as I have previously stated this is only a testsuite issue so it is not really that important. Cheers, Peter
