libtool-patches
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments


From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 23:09:56 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)

* Charles Wilson wrote on Sun, May 25, 2008 at 11:04:23PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>>> As discussed here:
>>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-05/msg00067.html
>>
>> ... this message specifies that the first argument not matching --lt-
>> should end parsing, whereas your patch parses all arguments. 
>
> Last message in the thread, at the very bottom:
>
> > Eric wrote:
>> let's go ahead and implement your proposal, of scanning ALL
>> arguments for --lt-* regardless of position then stripping them, even if
>> they appear in between the target's option and its argument or occur after
>> a -- argument for the target, and not worry about any prefix besides
>> - --lt-* for now. 

OK then.

> > Ralf wrote:
>> Also, it
>> does argument parsing twice, needlessly.
>
> About scanning the arguments twice: the first scan looks solely for  
> --lt-dump-script, and does so very early. We want this to work even if  
> the target executable doesn't exist...if we waited until the later  
> parsing loop, we might hit some error that is not germane to "can I dump  
> the script or not".
>
> Technically, the --lt-dump-script is now superfluous, so all that stuff,  
> including the extra argument-scanning loop, could be removed. But I'm  
> not comfortable ripping it out just yet.

OK.

>> Other than that, the only thing this patch is missing is a testsuite
>> test ensuring that "--" really is passed through.  (Such an addition
>> is preapproved.)
>
> I tested this manually using -DDEBUGWRAPPER, but I don't know diddly  
> about writing tests for the testsuite -- and besides, this test would be  
> mingw/cygwin-host specific, and would fail on all cross builds unless  
> $build has wine and binfmt...  if the test is so fragile, what's the 
> point?

I don't understand.  Programs on systems != mingw, cygwin should pass
"--" through as well.  But inexperience with Autotest granted, I'll
write a test.

Please go ahead with the patch, thanks!

Cheers,
Ralf




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]