Do not call toplevel configure in non-VPATH build. (was: libtool-2.2.11a on AIX 5.3 current git master / followup on the old test suite and failures in the new testsuit)

* Rainer Tammer wrote on Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:25:14AM CEST: > 112. pic_flag.at:24: testing override pic_flag at configure time ... > ./pic_flag.at:36: $CC $CPPFLAGS $CFLAGS $C_pic_flag -c foo.c || exit 77 > stderr: > stdout: > ./pic_flag.at:39: grep fpic stdout stderr && exit 77 > ./pic_flag.at:

Allow running pic_flag test with different shell.

I'd like to ensure that $CONFIG_SHELL and $configure_options are used consistently throughout the testsuite. So I'm fixing the pic_flag test to also use LT_AT_CONFIGURE, after making that macro accept a second argument to specify another configure script location. Hope this is trivial enough to j

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

On 8/6/2010 2:04 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:47:59PM CEST: >> On 8/6/2010 1:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> Wrt. lib and lib32, lib64, can we find out all files GCC needs by asking >>> it several -print-* questions? Plus maybe optimistically sea

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

On 7 Aug 2010, at 18:15, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Hi Gary, Hallo Ralf, > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 07:34:35AM CEST: >> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:24:39AM CEST: >>> Looking through the XSI substitutions, or more correctly the bash/ksh >>> func_append u

Avoid unwanted error message in configure output.

There might be no 'print' program available, and some shells (like FreeBSD sh) redirect that stderr only when you call the program from a subshell. I'm installing this to beautify configure output. The second 'print' instance should be fine, and 'printf' can be assumed to at least be present ever

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

On 8/6/2010 2:04 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Charles Wilson wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:47:59PM CEST: >> On 8/6/2010 1:19 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: >>> Wrt. lib and lib32, lib64, can we find out all files GCC needs by asking >>> it several -print-* questions? Plus maybe optimistically sea

Re: libtool-2.2.11a on AIX 5.3 current git master / followup on the old test suite and failures in the new testsuit

* Rainer Tammer wrote on Thu, Aug 05, 2010 at 09:25:14AM CEST: > I just refreshed my source from git and rerun the test suit on AIX 5.3. > 75: lt_dlopenext error messages FAILED > (lt_dlopenext.at:202) > 76: libdir of installed modules FAILED > (ltdl-libdi

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

FWIW, I didn't find any more objectionable things in the rest of this patch series, so whenever you have something that addresses the known issues, I think a public branch would be fine. If merely additional testsuite items are missing, that shouldn't hold up creating a branch, only merging it. A

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

Hi Charles, * Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Aug 07, 2010 at 06:06:14PM CEST: > configure:2917: checking whether the C compiler works > configure:2939: gcc --sysroot=/tmp/sysroot conftest.c >&5 > /usr/bin/ld: this linker was not configured to use sysroots > collect2: ld returned 1 exit status >

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

Hi Gary, * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 07:34:35AM CEST: > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Jun 28, 2010 at 01:24:39AM CEST: > > Looking through the XSI substitutions, or more correctly the bash/ksh > > func_append usage, there's room here to consistently use func_append > > everyw

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

On 8/8/2010 1:59 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Thank you for investing the work in this. If you're really motivated, > then it would still be nice to have such a test, but obviously it's not > a big help, so might as well skip that then. So, you suggesting *possibly* a test where: if not cross-co

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

* Charles Wilson wrote on Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 10:40:56PM CEST: > So, you suggesting *possibly* a test where: > > if not cross-compiling > if (the native) ld supports --sysroot > 1. create a fake sysroot (contents TBD?) > 2. execute sysroot.at contents as a subtest, with >native

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

On 8/7/2010 2:36 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > FWIW, I didn't find any more objectionable things in the rest of this > patch series, so whenever you have something that addresses the known > issues, I think a public branch would be fine. Well, that's up to Paolo. > If merely additional > testsuit

Re: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series

* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:14:37AM CEST: > On 8/7/2010 2:36 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > FWIW, I didn't find any more objectionable things in the rest of this > > patch series, so whenever you have something that addresses the known > > issues, I think a public branch would

finish mode (was: [RFT PATCH v4 0/8] Sysroot series)

* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 12:14:37AM CEST: > I think --mode=finish needs to accept additional arguments that are not > directories, somehow. Maybe mode=finish needs to iterate through its > arguments, and split them into "directories" and ".la files", and then > execute two di

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 08:50:12AM CEST: > On 7 Aug 2010, at 18:15, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I don't see that the +=/func_append substitution is causing any additional > concerns to the XSI functi

Re: Next Libtool Point Release Pending

Hallo Ralf, On 7 Aug 2010, at 02:02, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 08:53:15PM CEST: >> Another viable compromise might be to call the next release >> 2.3.0? > > Maybe it's early enough to finalize a decision on this when we > know a bit better which patc

Re: [PATCH] Add func_append_quoted and do inline func_append substitutions.

Hallo Ralf, On 9 Aug 2010, at 12:15, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > I think we should have a rule to not apply pure optimization patches > without measurement results. Agreed. We should document that somewhere too, so that we don't forget. Cheers, -- Gary V. Vaughan (g...@gnu.org)