Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 01:57:00PM CET: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >With response file support in GCC [1] we need to adjust Libtool > >accordingly. Minimally to let the option through as below, but > >ideally we should probably parse its contents. > > The spec says that the file must contain whitespace separated arguments, > so parsing should be a cinch.
Yes, but I believe the "recursinve include" semantics are not trivial; but I don't remember the whole discussion and its resolution, I read most of it at the time it was first discussed and have not reread it. > Is the patch necessary? Yes. Or a similar one, FWIW. > Won't @foo be treated as a file name and passed > through to the compiler driver by libtool anyway? No. You could `-Wc,@foo' of course, but.. > Or do you need to preserve relative argument order here? ..this would still be an issue. This is of course not handled by my simplistic patch. > >Any volunteers? Comments? > > After parsing we might want to change the arguments parsed from the file, > and presumably the file is used because the arguments are too long to pass > on the command line. In that case, I suppose we might be able to cope > by using partial linking. Or piecewise archiving, sure, *we* have all that machinery in place. > Since this is a gccism, and we'd like for libtool to present a portable > interface, I think that proper support for response files should be for > libtool to parse and interpret them, and rely on partial linking to help > us keep inside the command line length limits. Erm. We have -objectlist. I have yet to see a different need for response file semantics in libtool. > That way libtool users > get to use response files regardless of the underlying compiler. In the > fullness of time, we might test for compiler response file support, and > have libtool write long command lines into its own response file instead > of using partial linking where possible. This is what I was thinking of, too. :) Not that we're likely to need it much with linker scripts, though. > Regardless, this all sounds like post-2.0 to me... Sure. I just wanted to notify so we are aware. > can you add a TODO item please? Oh, my previous mail was intended to be the TODO item, on your TODO page, along with its URL when in the archive -- done now. :) Cheers, Ralf _______________________________________________ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
