On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 12:59:43PM -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >
> >No, I was recommending that we keep the patches to pass through unknown
> >options, since that leaves only one problematic case: unknown options with
> >arguments. Before the patch
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
No, I was recommending that we keep the patches to pass through unknown
options, since that leaves only one problematic case: unknown options with
arguments. Before the patch *all* unknown options were stopped, and we
would be back in that situation if w
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 06:30:41PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> But first: Do we revert the patches? -1 from me, +1 from Bob so far...
I just submitted a patch to do this so +1 from me :)
--
albert chin ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
___
Libtool mailing li
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Albert Chin wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>>
>> So you're sayin
On Tue, 14 Sep 2004, Albert Chin wrote:
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.
So you're saying we should not revert the patch? I think that
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 01:29:31PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 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
> >>un
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
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 prob
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 forc
On Tue, Sep 14, 2004 at 11:55:20AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> The effect of the original patch was to reduce the maintenance
> hassle of changing libtool after we discover a new option that
> should be passed through, and then have everyone wait for the patch
> to percolate through to a releas
Hi Albert,
Albert Chin wrote:
> I submitted a patch recently to libtool-patches to pass through
> unrecognized -[arg] and +[arg] switches:
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2004-09/msg00034.html
>
> I just ran across a failure. It seems ok to pass through unrecognized
> switch
I submitted a patch recently to libtool-patches to pass through
unrecognized -[arg] and +[arg] switches:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2004-09/msg00034.html
I just ran across a failure. It seems ok to pass through unrecognized
switches that do *not* take an argument. However,
12 matches
Mail list logo
