Hello,
* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 04:31:02PM CEST:
>
> I didn't realize Ralf was on holiday [...]
That and an unintended stay at hospital afterwards to un-break my
collarbone again.
Cheers,
Ralf, typing one-handed ATM
iddle of expressions):
#ifndef S_IXOTH
# define S_IXOTH 0
#endif
#ifndef S_IXGRP
# define S_IXGRP 0
#endif
int S_XFLAGS = S_IXOTH | S_IXGRP | S_IXUSR;
--
Eric Blake
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-cygwin--cwrapper-emits-wrapper-script-tf3621378.html#a11012253
Sent from the Gnu - Libtool - Patches mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Charles Wilson cwilson.fastmail.fm> writes:
> Attached.
Some nits that you should fix, now that you have committed this.
> -/* -DDEBUG is fairly common in CFLAGS. */
> -#undef DEBUG
> +#undef LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF
> #if defined DEBUGWRAPPER
> -# define DEBUG(format, ...) fprintf(stderr, forma
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
2007-04-27 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_libtool_wrapper_script): add
code block to handle cases when wrapper script is in $objdir.
(func_emit_libtool_cwrappere
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
> > stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
> > but the resulting patch is not applying.)
>
> Attached.
>
> --
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 09:43:50 -0500, "Peter O'Gorman" said:
> I'm lazy and would like to avoid work as much as possible, Gary has
> already asked if you'd like a commit bit, I'm hoping you'll agree, then
> all we'll need to do is say "ok" and you can commit your changes
> yourself.
As long as someb
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:25 -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
> > stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
> > but the resulting patch is not applying.)
>
> Attached.
Thanks,
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Since you have helped immensely in the maintenance of the Windows
ports of Libtool already, can I interest you in a CVS commit bit to
make that job a little easier for you?
Sure, that'd be a help. However, it isn't the "problem" here: with a
patch of this magnitude I wo
Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Could you please resend the patch itself, I am having issues with
stripping the html markup from these links. (well, I can strip the html,
but the resulting patch is not applying.)
Attached.
--
Chuck
2007-04-27 Charles Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* ltmain.m4sh
On Jun 1, 2007, at 4:20 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, "Charles Wilson" said:
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/
msg00088.html
Ping.
If it's Friday, it must be time for:
Could you please
On Sat, Jun 02, 2007 at 10:56:22AM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> Noah Misch wrote:
> >Long-term, we can revise this cumbersome division of work between the
> >executable
> >wrapper and the wrapper script. Ideally, the wrapper methodology for Unix
> >should resemble that for Cygwin/MSYS, so we do
Hi Chuck,
On 1 Jun 2007, at 22:20, Charles Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, "Charles Wilson" said:
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/
msg00088.html
Ping.
If it's Friday, it must be time for:
Ping * 3.
Noah Misch wrote:
I don't speak for the Libtool maintainers, but I'll throw out my impressions of
the patch, in case it might help move things along. Not using Cygwin or MSYS
myself these days, I trust that the patch improves things there as you say it
does. It seems fairly harmless from the pe
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 05:20:05PM -0400, Charles Wilson wrote:
> On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, "Charles Wilson" said:
> > On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
> Ping * 3.
I don't speak for the Libtool maintainer
On Fri, 25 May 2007 11:27:08 -0400, "Charles Wilson" said:
> On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
> > Ping?
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
>
> Ping.
If it's Friday, it must be time for:
Ping * 3.
--
Chuck
On May 4, 2007, Charles Wilson wrote:
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
Ping.
--
Chuck
Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00088.html
--
Chuck
This is a revised version of the patch that first appeared here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00050.html
Please refer to that message for a discussion of the theory of this
patch, its effects, and justification.
This patch is "phase 2" in the 3-phase sequence of
* Charles Wilson wrote on Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:41:08AM CEST:
>
> The only problem I see is if libtool-HEAD-after-2.0 (say, nearing the
> /next/ major release) begins requiring ac-2.61/am-1.10 (or even
> newer).
You'll have my vote against that happening too soon.
> I suspect they will make mor
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 23:01:10 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues"
> FWIW, this isn't going to change a lot for me. If I have doubts that
> changes are free of regressions, then there is work to be done.
agreed.
> It's
> not helpful if GCC developers have to sort out those regressions.
> Conversely, if GCC
* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 04:42:38AM CEST:
>
> FYI, I'm going to focus on the argz patch before returning to this one.
Which is fine.
> (I
> am pushing a bit, because if possible and acceptable to [Ralf|Gary|others],
> I want to get both the argz stuff and as much of the "e
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Certainly. I was merely trying to not infer that you'd have to do even
more work than the lot that you're already doing. Of course if you're
ambitious go for it. ;-)
Thanks for fixing the MinGW case here.
Sure.
Hmm, maybe one after the `rm -f "$prefix/bin/..."' and
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:53:46AM CEST:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:34:41AM CEST:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
for (i=0; i
What's that extra ; for BTW?
If !DEBUGWRAPPER, then LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF() goes away completely, and
g
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 08:53:46AM CEST:
> * Charles Wilson wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:34:41AM CEST:
> > Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> >>>for (i=0; i >>>{
> >>> -DEBUG("(main) newargz[%d] : %s\n",i,newargz[i]);
> >>> +LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF("(main) newar
* Charles Wilson wrote on Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:34:41AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
>> (note I'm not asking you to do this work here; actually, I'd like to ask
>> you not to fix even more different things with one patch. Merely noting
>> it in case you're interested.)
>
> Ok, but it my defe
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 03:03:02AM CEST:
When the wrapper foo.exe is launched, it generates a new wrapper script
.libs/foo_ltshwrapper
Hmm, I'm wondering whether we should keep prefixing within .libs. Maybe
.libs/ltsh-foo
? WDYT?
Meh, I do
Hello Charles,
Thanks for the patch again. First review:
* Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Apr 21, 2007 at 03:03:02AM CEST:
> This patch depends on this one:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00048.html
(unfortunately, due to idiocy on my part, that patch will have to
This patch depends on this one:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2007-04/msg00048.html
With this patch, on cygwin/mingw the wrapper script created by libtool
in '.' is used only for reading back in via func_source(); THIS copy of
the wrapper script is not used during the "run
28 matches
Mail list logo
