[Top][All Lists]
[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
- [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments,
Ralf Wildenhues <=
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/25
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/05/26
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/26
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Ralf Wildenhues, 2008/05/26
- Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Charles Wilson, 2008/05/26
Re: [PATCH] Cwrapper should not eat -- arguments, Olly Betts, 2008/05/28