Re: [patch #6448] [MSVC 7/7] Add MSVC Support

[Peter Rosin]

Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
> Hi Peter,
>
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 09:40:17PM CEST:
> > >   72: stresstest.at:31   Link option thorough search test
> > > Automatic path conversion in MSYS doesn't kick in for the argument
> > > -OUT:/some/absolute/path so lib.exe barfs.
> > Commenting out absolute paths from the stress test reveals a couple of
> > other problems...
>
> Who'd have thought that.  ;-)
>
> > First, when l3='-rpath /nonexistent' and st='-no-install', I see no
> > reason for linking main using main-static.lo, so clear the mst variable
> > for this case.
>
> I'm not sure whether I understand the logic behind this reasoning.
> If l3='-rpath /nonexistent', then liba.la will be an uninstalled shared
> library.  That means that import semantics must be used, right?

Right (unless you link with -static).

> > 2008-08-13  Peter Rosin <address@hidden>
> >
> >         * tests/stresstest.at: Link with main.lo when liba is shared
> >         and linking main with -no-install.
>
> Ahh, the actual commit message makes this much clearer.  :-)
> IOW, I only had problems parsing the paragraph above, the actual
> patch is fine with me, although it might do with some comment at the
> case matching logic which doesn't look trivial any more (like: "if
> -static is not passed, and the library is shared, then we have to use
> -DLIBA_DLL_IMPORT, thus main.lo").

You got it. I have pushed this patch, with the extra comment, and with
a couple of whitespace fixes in the immediate vicinity.

> > 2008-08-13  Peter Rosin <address@hidden>
> >
> >         * tests/stresstest.at [MSVC]: dllimport all imported
> >         variables.
>
> This is also ok with nits below addressed/explained.

Pushed, see below.

> Thanks,
> Ralf
>
> > --- a/tests/stresstest.at
> > +++ b/tests/stresstest.at
> > @@ -93,29 +93,35 @@ AT_DATA(main.c,
>
> > -extern int v9(void);
> [...]
> > +LIBA_SCOPE_VAR int v9(void);
>
> Why does this one need annotation?  If functions need this, then the
> naming of the #define is certainly suboptimal.

My mistake, removed in the patch I pushed.

> [...]
> >  LIBA_SCOPE int (*const v12) (void);
>
> Why doesn't this one need LIBA_SCOPE_VAR annotation only?
> (I guess I'm to search for the answer to this one in Brian's post)

That I don't know. It's the same in export.at (probably copied one
way or the other). I just left it as is, and changing it is
orthogonal to this, so should be a separate patch anyway, right?

> Likewise for both in the other hunk:

Same treatment.

I also pushed the link-order.at patch as shown in
http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg04063.html

Cheers,
Peter