Hi Bob! Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, 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... > > > Libtool is not currently in a position to mandate anything. The crux of > the problem is that Autoconf executes compilation commands to perform > tests, the results of what it found are (partially) cached in the > Makefiles, and then re-played by the Makefiles to perform compilations. > As a result, the libtool command line must be similar to what Autoconf > and the compiler accept.
Fair point.
But pragmatically we are not any worse off, and at least we are in a better
position than if we reverted the pass through patches. Later in the thread
I propose that we can try to maintain a list of argument options that need to
be passed through, and fall back to mangling (with a bug-libtool nag) when we
don't provide any other way for the user to get options to the compiler (until
the next release if they report it)...
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
