On Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:55 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:05:53AM CEST:
> > >On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:23 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
> > >>Why does gcc but not msvc need them?
>
> > cl.exe will generate the manifest file all by itself, regardless
Hello,
* Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 09:05:53AM CEST:
> >On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:23 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
> >>Why does gcc but not msvc need them?
> cl.exe will generate the manifest file all by itself, regardless of
> executable name. My gripe was that any file created by
On Tue, 2009-06-30 at 20:35 +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hello Michael,
>
> I'm pretty short on review time ATM; sorry for not providing a detailed
> review.
No problem. It's just that the hpux10.20 box is shot down tomorrow, so I
cannot test this platform any more.
>
> * Michael Haubenwalln
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 06:48:52AM CEST:
>> but
>> as far as I can tell we don't actually have separate cases for those
>> other languages' linker requirements at present. There's just C++, and
>> "everything else":
>
> Yes. What I am asking is "do
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> But IANAL, so...
>
> Me neither. I'm not making up these rules either, so please discuss
> them with the FSF if you have an issue with them.
Nope, no issue. I didn't realize the FSF treated patches cumulatively.
You're right, Yaakov has submitted a number of these smal
Den 2009-07-01 00:11 skrev libt...@cwilson.fastmail.fm:
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:23 +0200, "Ralf Wildenhues" wrote:
Why does gcc but not msvc need them?
It does. cl.exe has a flag that causes it to automatically invoke the
MSVC manifest tool (mt? I forget), AND link the resulting object into
the
