Re: PATCH: pointless code removal

2002-04-02 Thread Bruce Korb
Albert Chin wrote: > Isn't the use of `$echo $CC` gross? Isn't the whole script just a bit gross anyway? ;-) ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: PATCH: pointless code removal

2002-04-02 Thread Albert Chin
On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 10:41:15AM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote: > There was a bit missing in my patch yesterday, which the tagdemo > tests caught right away. The same logic to check for spaces needs > to be in the tag matching code all the way through. With this patch > I'm getting all tests pass

Problem with AC_PROVIDE_xxx under autoconf 2.53

2002-04-02 Thread Bonzini
Hi, I received this report from a GNU Smalltalk user and it seems like it is a bug in libtool, triggered by newer versions of autoconf (the old version uses 2.52, the new one uses 2.53). The configure.ac file has AC_LIBTOOL_WIN32_DLL. It looks like the AC_PROVIDE mechanism has been moved into M

Re: PATCH: pointless code removal

2002-04-02 Thread Robert Boehne
Hello! There was a bit missing in my patch yesterday, which the tagdemo tests caught right away. The same logic to check for spaces needs to be in the tag matching code all the way through. With this patch I'm getting all tests passed under Tru64 and Linux, and no more than two failures (namely

Re: PATCH: pointless code removal

2002-04-02 Thread Robert Boehne
I forgot the patch again! BTW: I found this is a lot better than trying to strip off a leading space. Also, I found that it was necessary to check both cases, with a space prepended, and without. Thanks! -- Robert Boehne Software Engineer Ricardo Software Chicago Technical Cent

Re: PATCH: pointless code removal

2002-04-02 Thread Robert Boehne
Bruce: Now that I look at it, it may be better to remove that initial space from $base_compile. Any thoughts on that? -- Robert Boehne Software Engineer Ricardo Software Chicago Technical Center TEL: (630)789-0003 x. 238 FAX: (630)789-0127 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _