Re: purpose of the c wrapper

2009-06-07 Thread Charles Wilson
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Vincent, you're contradicting yourself over the course of this work. > I thought at one point we got the wrapper to work on mingwce. I mean > that's the reason we added those __MINGW32CE__ ifdefs in the first > place. If they fail to work properly now, then we should fix

Re: documetation on Linux -> Windows cross (libtool + stuff) needed/offered

2009-06-07 Thread Charles Wilson
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> If, however, such step by step examples already exist, please point me >> to them and, if the chapter/link with them is not yet in the documentation, >> please put the info into documentation. > > Well, there isn't much in the Libtool manual at all, and only general > in

Re: purpose of the c wrapper

2009-06-07 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Vincent Torri wrote on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:33:42AM CEST: > 1) remove the wrapper for cegcc and mingw32ce host (see the patch i sent) > 2) remove the #ifndef __MINGW32CE__ the in windows wrapper, they are > useless. Thank you for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Can you please sen

Re: d3dx9.lib is not managed by ld, but libd3dx9.a is

2009-06-07 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Roumen Petrov wrote on Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 08:54:24PM CEST: > Vincent Torri wrote: >> I'm writing a dll using D3D and autotools stuff (MSYS / MinGW). I pass >> -ld3dx9 and i have added everything so that the dll is built. >> >> If I add from the DirectX SDK d3dx9.lib in /mingw/lib, i have the

Re: purpose of the c wrapper

2009-06-07 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Vincent Torri wrote on Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:28:23AM CEST: > On Thu, 4 Jun 2009, Roumen Petrov wrote: >> Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> But anyway, I don't see how the current git code generates C wrappers >>> for wince. >> >> The host is usually xxx-mingw32ce and will match patterns like >> {*-}

Re: purpose of the c wrapper

2009-06-07 Thread Ralf Wildenhues
* Vincent Torri wrote on Sun, Jun 07, 2009 at 08:43:39AM CEST: > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >> Thank you for explaining. I agree with your reasoning. Can you please >> send a patch that does the above, including a ChangeLog entry, to the >> libtool-patches list? I will apply it t