Hi,
Well, this is what I ended up with, it does not change the currently
documented saving of error messages until lt_dlerror() is called, it
copies the error message to ensure that we don't return garbage when
lt_dlerror is called. I think I also got all the places where we were
setting
On 6/17/2010 4:54 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Well, this is what I ended up with, it does not change the currently
documented saving of error messages until lt_dlerror() is called, it
copies the error message to ensure that we don't return garbage when
lt_dlerror is called. I think I also got
On 06/17/2010 08:36 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2010 4:54 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Well, this is what I ended up with, it does not change the currently
documented saving of error messages until lt_dlerror() is called, it
copies the error message to ensure that we don't return garbage
Original thread(s)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00058.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-07/msg2.html
Revived thread(s):
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2010-02/msg00019.html
On 6/17/2010 10:24 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't magically assist solving my problem with
71. dlloader-api.at:23: FAILED (dlloader-api.at:422)
but that's not a reason to object to the patch.
Well that sucks :(
I suggest changing the LT__SETERROR macro in
On 06/17/2010 10:21 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2010 10:24 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't magically assist solving my problem with
71. dlloader-api.at:23: FAILED (dlloader-api.at:422)
but that's not a reason to object to the patch.
Well that sucks :(
I
On 06/17/2010 10:35 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On 06/17/2010 10:21 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 6/17/2010 10:24 PM, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Unfortunately, this doesn't magically assist solving my problem with
71. dlloader-api.at:23: FAILED (dlloader-api.at:422)
but that's not a reason to object
