Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 02:49:25PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >Erm. We have -objectlist. I have yet to see a different need for
> >response file semantics in libtool.
>
> Too many -D/-I options... I'm sure there are others.
config.h exists for the form
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
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
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 co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
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.
|
| Any volunteers? Comments?
|
This is fine
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
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.
Any volunteers? Comments?
Cheers,
Ralf
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2005-11/msg01700.html
Index: ltmain.in
