Hi Albert, Albert Chin wrote: > On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >>Maybe we could mandate that option arguments to be passed through >>libtool have to be mangled? So we'd accept, say, -Woff=all and >>unmangle it before calling the compiler... > > We shouldn't force the users to change their behavior though.
Okay. We can do both: libtool will keep a list of options it knows
about (along with details of whether they accept arguments), and pass
them through unchanged. As an interrim for users that want to get
options with arguments to the compiler with current libtool, they can
use a mangled format that will nag them to report their mangling usage
to bug-libtool for correction in the next release, but pass the unmangled
option to the compiler. Hopefully, the list of argument bearing options
that libtool needs to know about is reasonably small and slow changing.
I am keen to come up with a low maintenance framework for tracking
these optioned arguments so that adding new ones is a snap. Searching
for the right case...esac and adding a new block is a PITA.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker / )= http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author `(_~)_ http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
