Hallo Ralf,
On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:30, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:27:27PM CEST:
>>* libltdl/Makefile.inc (LTDL_VERSION_INFO): We've added the
>>static libprefix interface, so new version-info is C+1:0:R+1.
>
> libprefix is a *static* local u
Hi Ralf,
Den 2010-09-24 06:20 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> Hello Peter,
>
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:44:43AM CEST:
>> need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC. I think the test
>> is there to ensure that "weird" systems continue to work even
>> if the testsuite is running on
Hi Ralf,
Den 2010-09-24 07:21 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 12:25:14AM CEST:
>> Subject: [PATCH] tests: import variables for MSVC.
>>
>> * tests/depdemo/sysdep.h (EXTERN): New define, saying how to
>> declare variables that might need to be imported.
>> * tes
Hello Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 10:12:10AM CEST:
> On 23 Sep 2010, at 00:30, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:27:27PM CEST:
> >>* libltdl/Makefile.inc (LTDL_VERSION_INFO): We've added the
> >>static libprefix interfac
On 9/23/2010 6:25 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> I don't know how to set up the defines so that EXTERN becomes
>
> 1. "extern" when you use a static library
> 2. "extern" when you build a static library
> 3. "extern declspec(dllimport)" when you use a shared library
> 4. "extern declspec(dllexport)" whe
Hi Peter,
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 11:30:07AM CEST:
> Den 2010-09-24 06:20 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> > The part about this patch which I'm unsure about is this:
> >
> > Does the testsuite otherwise cover well enough the fact that users may
> > name their modules with or without
On 9/24/2010 8:44 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Yes indeed, I intended __declspec. I have revised the patch so that it
> handles "building" correctly (dllexport for dlls, not for static) and
> "using" the best way possible (still dllimports from from both dlls and
> static libs).
Well, I'm confused.
Den 2010-09-24 19:30 skrev Charles Wilson:
> On 9/23/2010 6:25 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> I don't know how to set up the defines so that EXTERN becomes
>>
>> 1. "extern" when you use a static library
>> 2. "extern" when you build a static library
>> 3. "extern declspec(dllimport)" when you use a sha
> Den 2010-09-24 19:30 skrev Charles Wilson:
> > That is the typical approach. The drawback -- usually an acceptable one
> > -- is that if you are building a "stack" of dependent DLLs:
> >
> > EXE --> C.DLL -> B.DLL
> > --> A.DLL
> >
> > Then (a) you must link exe using .obj's compiled as pi
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:44:25PM CEST:
> Den 2010-09-24 07:21 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> > Patch is ok with me if it keeps GCC working, and Chuck is ok with it.
> > You meant to use __declspec everywhere not declspec, even in your text
> > part of the mail, right?
>
> Yes indee
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:44:25PM CEST:
[SNIP]
I'll let Chuck and you hash out and decide all the details on this.
One question though: will all of these '#ifdef _MSC_VER' cases need
changing as soon as we add support for yet another w32 compiler
I sent my email before to finish, sorry.
Roumen Petrov wrote:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 02:44:25PM CEST:
[SNIP]
I'll let Chuck and you hash out and decide all the details on this.
One question though: will all of these '#ifdef _MSC_VER' cases need
cha
On 9/24/2010 8:13 PM, Roumen Petrov wrote:
> About pre-processor flags - better is C code to start with #define
> BUIILD_FOO instead -DBUIILD_FOO in makefile.
No, actually, it is not better. The reason is, any given C file *might*
be used in a library, or it *might* be used in an application -- o
On 9/24/2010 8:06 PM, Roumen Petrov wrote:
>
> I would like to propose different macros for export/import of variables
> in format:
>
> #define XXX(type)decorator_before type decorator_after
Why? Peter's formula is practically universal in most packages I have
seen (ncurses is the only exce
On 9/24/2010 2:53 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>> Den 2010-09-24 19:30 skrev Charles Wilson:
>>> That is the typical approach. The drawback -- usually an acceptable one
>>> -- is that if you are building a "stack" of dependent DLLs:
>>>
>>> EXE --> C.DLL -> B.DLL
>>> --> A.DLL
>>>
>>> Then (a) y
On 9/24/2010 2:46 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Now I'm also confused.
That's not good.
> /me double checks (see below)
>
> WHAT? It doesn't work as I stated!?!
>
> *ponders that for a bit*
> *scratches head*
>
> Ahh, you said "libtool does this by default IIRC". If that's actually the
> case than
16 matches
Mail list logo
