Den 2010-09-06 20:42 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > * Peter Rosin wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 08:38:31PM CEST: >> Den 2010-09-06 20:01 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: >>> * Peter Rosin wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 11:14:19AM CEST: >>>> Easily? Is this something like this what you had in mind? (untested) >>> >>> Yes, something like that is what I had in mind, nice! I haven't tested >>> it yet either, though. >> >> I think I want to do >> >> + func_to_tool_file "$output_objdir/" >> + tool_output_objdir=$func_to_tool_file_result >> >> and >> >> + $CC -o $output_objdir/$soname $libobjs $compiler_flags $deplibs >> "@$tool_output_objdir$soname.exp" -Wl,-DLL~ > > I'm not sure why you replace the second $output_objdir/ instance but not > the first one in this line?
I'm not sure it's a good reason, but there is zero chance of this code path in libtool working without 'compile'. The first conversion is handled by 'compile' and as a rule of thumb I have converted as late as possible. Maybe libtool is faster at converting though, since it doesn't need to look up what conversion to perform? I'm unsure. From a correctness POV, it doesn't matter. What do you think given the above? >> And, ok to push (with the other nits) if it works? (testsuite now running) > > Well, yeah, if there is a good reason for the above apparent > inconsistency (and if things work, of course). Ok, good, but I'm still interested in your taste guideline. And, as always, thanks for the reviews! Cheers, Peter
