On 2013-01-19 06:12, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for working on this. > > On 19 Jan 2013, at 05:55, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >> On 2013-01-12 01:26, Peter Rosin wrote: >>> On 2013-01-11 12:34, Martin Doucha wrote: >>>> I'd like to report a bug in libtool 2.4 (including the latest git >>>> revision) which mangles valid DLL def files under MinGW and makes the >>>> linker barf. >>> >>> This issue has been reported before [1]. >> >> So, as hinted above, I'm following up with a pair of patches that >> appear to mend this. >> >> Ok to push? > > By inspection, these patches look good to me - presuming there are no > regressions, please go ahead.
I have found no regressions, and thanks for the speedy review! > One nit: your new test has a Copyright notice starting at 2007 followed by > "written in 2013". The new code doesn't look derivative of existing tests, so > I'd suggest deleting the years prior to 2013 before pushing. Done. >> Or are the white-space changes in the first patch too intrusive? > > If you would like to separate those into a separate patch then please feel > free; but I'd rather see functional progress in Libtool development than > being overly anal about changeset minutiae for potential future git > archaeology at the expense of using your Libtool hacking time more wisely :) Splitting the commit in two is simple enough, takes little time to do and I don't feel obliged to test the intermediate state, so I just did it. But I will hold off the push a couple of days pending feedback from those actually using .def files for real things. Cheers, Peter