libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MSVC: Support for response files with $NM.


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: MSVC: Support for response files with $NM.
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 22:05:57 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-04-22)

Hi Peter,

a little while ago:

* Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jul 07, 2010 at 10:15:53PM CEST:
> No problem, but I was initially very confused (and still am) by the
> fact that
> 
> make check-local TESTSUITEFLAGS='-v -d -k max_cmd_len' \
>       INNER_TESTSUITEFLAGS=',export -v -d export' | grep creating
> 
> did not catch output from this line:
>       func_verbose "creating $NM input file list: $output"
> 
> (and no trace of it in either of
> tests/testsuite.log,
> tests/testsuite.dir/111/testsuite.log or
> tests/testsuite.dir/111/testsuite.dir/044/testsuite.log
> either)
> 
> I had to change func_verbose to echo in the above line to finally
> be able to verify.
> 
> What's up with that?

Well, func_verbose only outputs if --verbose is passed.  The rules are a
bit obtuse, granted, but were some sort of compromise.

> >>>>+         func_verbose "creating $NM input file list: $output"
> >>>>+         for obj in $save_libobjs; do
> >>>>+           $ECHO "$obj"
> >>>>+         done>   "$output"
> >>>>+         eval cmd=\"$cmd1\"
> >>>
> >>>This eval is wrong and shouldn't be necessary, func_show_eval below
> >>>already does an evaluation.  Please check that it is not needed.
> >>
> >>The double eval was there before, so the patch just copied the
> >>existing style. Or didn't it? The code was:
> >
> >Whatever.
> 
> Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I don't care, but I find that I
> need 100% attention on getting libtool to do what I want. I just
> don't usually have anything left for the bigger picture...

That's fine really.  I was hitting the wrong tone again in my previous
message, sorry.

> (but perhaps I should also point out that I think you wrote that
> part of the patch, and I didn't really look at those aspects of
> that code, the code looked fine to me and it did what I wanted)

Hey, just because I wrote it, doesn't mean it's right, or that I won't
find it objectionable at some other point in time.  ;-)
Point well taken in getting blame assigned to the right person though.

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]