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

[Peter Rosin]

Hi Markus,

Markus Duft skrev:
> > Hi Ralf,
> >
> > Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
> > > Hi Peter,
> <snip>
> > So, I guess I'm saying that I'd prefer sticking to:
> >      if test "$GCC" != yes; then
> >        reload_cmds=false
> >      fi
> >
> > Ok to push?
>
> Could this break parity support? I know It's not in the tree yet, but I
> still hope, that ralf comes to looking into my patch some day....

Well, my guess is that you would know if you have implemented reloadable
objects (the -r switch) in parity. If you don't know, I expect reloadable
objects are not supported and that this patch will help parity.

BTW, did you file a copyright assignment?

> > > I'm thinking of two problem cases:
> > > - could be someone would like to use cccl with GNU binutils ld
>
> I guess neither cccl nor parity will work with GNU ld right now, BUT: M$ own
> cc and cc89 scripts (which are used by M$ to build nearly the whole system
> with MSVC as backend) use GNU ld, maybe those aren't too important, since
> not many people except M$ use it, but still ...

This is exactly my point, the only thing that currently works with libtool
and gnu ld is gcc (at least I think so). So, why make exceptions at this
time for something that doesn't work anyway? It can be added when (if ever)
all the other bits needed for cross toolchain support are added.

Regarding cc and cc89, that would be with interix as host, so not affected
by this. Right?

> > I have wasted quite a bit of time trying to make cccl work. Can someone
> > pleasepleaseprettypleasewithsugerontop point me to the *exact* cccl
> > script I should use, what environment I should have and how I should
> > configure to make it work?
>
> Use parity instead :)

That's just silly, as the whole point of me getting cccl to fly is to not
break any existing cccl support. And the whole point of my current efforts
is to require as little 3rd party stuff as possible to use libtool with MS
tools.

Cheers,
Peter