[PATCH] Skip need_lib_prefix.at on systems without lib prefix on libraries.

Hi! need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC. I think the test is there to ensure that "weird" systems continue to work even if the testsuite is running on a "normal" system. "weird" in this case are systems with need_lib_prefix set to "unknown" and "normal" are those with it set to "no". Howe

Re: [PATCH] Fix sh.test failure introduced in 72064249

Den 2010-09-17 04:53 skrev Charles Wilson: > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_mode_link): Avoid poor syntax. > --- > Without this, sh.test fails. Committed as obvious (no, really, this time). Oops, sorry. Thanks for taking care of the mess! Cheers, Peter

[PATCH] Fix sh.test failure introduced in 72064249

* libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_mode_link): Avoid poor syntax. --- Without this, sh.test fails. Committed as obvious (no, really, this time). -- Chuck libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh b/libltdl/con

Re: w32 pending?

On 9/16/2010 3:52 PM, Vincent Torri wrote: >> do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before >> the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just acked)? > > there is a mingw-w64 issue i have mentioned 2 times, with a debug log of > libtool. This is the "Warning: linker

Re: w32 pending?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Vincent, * Vincent Torri wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:39PM CEST: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just a

Re: w32 pending?

On 9/16/2010 2:55 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > This looks ok, but wouldn't the shell wrapper need this as well, > seeing that it could be run on w32 too (IIRC)? You're right. I had looked at this before, and erroneously concluded that the shell wrapper was DTRT. But...it isn't. Also, my changel

Fix darwin fat archive mode test failure

http://autobuild.josefsson.org/libtool/log-201009131952560019000.txt The patch below fixes this failure: ../../libtool-master/tests/localization.at:43: (LANG=de_DE LANGUAGE=de_DE LC_ALL=de_DE $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS -c a.c) || exit 1 stderr: a.c:1: error: size of array 'x' is negative a.c:1: error

Re: w32 pending?

Hello Vincent, * Vincent Torri wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:52:39PM CEST: > On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before > >the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just acked)? > > there is a mingw-w64 issue i

Re: w32 pending?

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: Hello Chuck and Peter, do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just acked)? there is a mingw-w64 issue i have mentioned 2 times, with a debug log of libtool. Vincent

Re: w32 pending?

Hi Charles, * Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 08:47:52PM CEST: > [cygwin|mingw] Fix order of PATH manipulation in cwrapper > > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_cwrapperexe_src:main): Call > lt_update_exe_path before lt_update_lib_path, to ensure that the local > OBJDIR(s) supe

Re: w32 pending?

On 9/16/2010 1:28 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before > the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just acked)? My most recent cygwin-special libtool release has the following four patches: 0001-cygwin-mingw-Create-UAC-manifest-f

Re: [PATCH] maint: improve README instructions for fetching latest version.

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:49:47AM CEST: > * README, README-alpha (Obtaining the Latest Sources): New > section, describing use of savannah repositories and bootstrap. > * README.alpha (Reporting Bugs): Remove git instructions in > favour of a reference to the new

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Prefer $NM @file over calculating the cmd line length.

Hi Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:03:10AM CEST: > Ok to push this time? Okay. I think it ought to be possible to clean up the logic a bit further, to make it easier to follow when you read the whole paragraph of code, but such a cleanup is just as good to make alongside th

w32 pending?

Hello Chuck and Peter, do I see it right that there are no pending w32 patches for before the next Libtool release any more (after the one I just acked)? Thanks, Ralf

Re: [PATCH 7/7] Prefer $NM @file over calculating the cmd line length.

Den 2010-09-16 19:25 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > Hi Peter, > > * Peter Rosin wrote on Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 10:03:10AM CEST: >> Ok to push this time? > > Okay. > > I think it ought to be possible to clean up the logic a bit further, to > make it easier to follow when you read the whole paragraph of