Hi Gary!
Den 2010-06-09 16:46 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
Hi Peter,
[[Adding libtool list]]
On 9 Jun 2010, at 20:21, Peter Rosin wrote:
Den 2010-06-09 14:50 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
As far as I can tell, you are eminently more qualified than me to know
whether your patches are likely to have issues
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 14:35, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2010-06-09 16:46 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
>> As far as I can tell, you are eminently more qualified than me to know
>> whether your patches are likely to have issues. If we can't do a straight
>> merge from your branch to master after 2.2
Den 2010-06-10 11:14 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
8c17887ee34e73a2aeb127b94f5b76f45dc34017
Why so much cruft in ltmain.m4sh just to drive a different archiver? It
seems to me that this would be better and easier to maintain, test and extend
as a whole new script. Let's call it, $prefix/libexec/
Aside: I'm leaning away from upholding the
'drop-in-with-minimum-edits' philosophy for my rewrite, since the
dlfcn.h API seems like a pretty bad design to me. After all, all
people really need to do is call functions with a known name and
known signature which happen to be in another library. I'm
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 20:55, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Den 2010-06-10 11:14 skrev Gary V. Vaughan:
>8c17887ee34e73a2aeb127b94f5b76f45dc34017
Why so much cruft in ltmain.m4sh just to drive a different archiver? It
seems to me that this would be better and easier to mainta
Hi Peter,
On 10 Jun 2010, at 21:15, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>> Aside: I'm leaning away from upholding the
>> 'drop-in-with-minimum-edits' philosophy for my rewrite, since the
>> dlfcn.h API seems like a pretty bad design to me. After all, all
>> people really need to do is call functions with a kno
On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
I think it would be better in c++.
No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
And it would make me cry myself to sleep at night. I avoid C++, Perl,
McDonalds and suicide bomber recruiters as much as I possibly can. I'm
Hello,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:12:41PM CEST:
> On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> >>I think it would be better in c++.
> >
> >No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C.
> It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public in
On 06/10/2010 02:28 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
As I am sure many are aware, libltdl's error reporting is pretty dumb,
lt_dlerror() regularly reports things like "file not found" where the
actual problem might be something completely different, and a
re
On Thu, 10 Jun 2010, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
As I am sure many are aware, libltdl's error reporting is pretty dumb,
lt_dlerror() regularly reports things like "file not found" where the actual
problem might be something completely different, and a reasonable error
string may be readily available
Hello,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:35:41PM CEST:
> On 10 Jun 2010, at 20:55, Peter Rosin wrote:
> > However, I guess the situation is very much the same as with
> > $CC and the compile script and that seems to work. I just don't
> > understand exactly how.
That's pretty muc
11 matches
Mail list logo
