* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 01:57:57PM CEST:
> As an aside, WHY is it that libtool tries to figure out what the language
> driver
> does, and use ld directly, rather than just trust the language driver and use
> it
> to link instead? It seems that the current libtool behavior
On 07/28/2010 07:35 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
$ diff good-041/inst/lib/liba.la bad-041/inst/lib/liba.la
20c20
< dependency_libs='
-R/usr/src/packages/libtool/git/build-bisect/tests/testsuite.dir/041/foobar'
---
> dependency_libs=''
$ diff good-041/inst/lib/libb.la bad-041/inst/lib/libb.la
20
On 7/28/2010 9:06 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
So we have two bugs now instead of one. :) On the other hand it means we
can consider one change at a time, which is good news.
[out of order reply]
Regarding the libtool.m4, maybe squashing the (untested) attached patch
could help...
Yes, that fixe
On 07/28/2010 02:47 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
On 7/28/2010 5:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:10, Charles Wilson
But that doesn't appear to be the case for cross builds, in the
new tests.
But I don't think it was bisectable in cross builds in your original
development e
On 7/28/2010 5:05 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:10, Charles Wilson
>> But that doesn't appear to be the case for cross builds, in the
>> new tests.
>>
>> But I don't think it was bisectable in cross builds in your original
>> development either.
>
> Yes, I usually develop
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:10, Charles Wilson
wrote:
> Well, after the first 7 of 9 (no star trek jokes, please), in native
> mode, all of the problematic tests pass (old:
> tagdemo-conf.test+tagdemo-make.test; new: 41, 101).
That's good.
> So, I can either squash 8 and 9, and treat it atomicall
On 7/26/2010 10:04 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/26/2010 01:57 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
>> These are rebased versions of Paolo's sysroot patches, rebased to
>> 0e01d00c70fe1eba2b746a6bb52e3c9277a4f1ef (Sun Jul 18 17:17:15 2010 +0200)
> Thanks for figuring out all that instead of waiting for me
On 07/26/2010 01:57 PM, Charles Wilson wrote:
These are rebased versions of Paolo's sysroot patches, rebased to
0e01d00c70fe1eba2b746a6bb52e3c9277a4f1ef (Sun Jul 18 17:17:15 2010 +0200)
As it happens, Paolo's old 3/8 'provide shell functions to configure.patch'
didn't
apply very well at all, gi
These are rebased versions of Paolo's sysroot patches, rebased to
0e01d00c70fe1eba2b746a6bb52e3c9277a4f1ef (Sun Jul 18 17:17:15 2010 +0200)
As it happens, Paolo's old 3/8 'provide shell functions to configure.patch'
didn't
apply very well at all, given the recent changes. So, I took the brute fo
