Re: [PATCH] Enable runtime cwrapper debugging; add tests

[Charles Wilson]

Charles Wilson wrote:
> * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_cwrapperexe_src)
> [ltwrapper_debugprintf]: Renamed to...
> [lt_debugprintf]: this. Only print messages if lt_debug != 0.
> [file scope]: Add constants and variables to support new --lt-debug
> option. Remove LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF macro.
> [main]: Consolidate option parsing. Ensure first use of lt_debugprintf
> occurs after option parsing. Add stanza to parse for --lt-debug and
> set lt_debug variable.
> [all]: Use lt_debugprintf () instead of LTWRAPPER_DEBUGPRINTF (()).
> * tests/cwrapper.at: Add new tests for --lt-debug and -DLT_DEBUGWRAPPER.
> ---
> Another fragment arising from review of
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00031.html
> 
> Lightly tested by running "tests/demo-shared.test tests/demo-make.test
> tests/demo-exec.test" and cwrapper.at.

Ping x3?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00039.html

This has been in the cygwin distro for five months (over a year, in one
form or another), and heavily tested. It's a long patch, but
conceptually and mechanically quite simple.  The rationale was
determined via earlier on-list discussions -- I didn't just go off on a
wild tangent and do this; I was instructed that this was a better
approach than the one(s) I originally posted:

http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00036.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00043.html

I'm going to be (re)raising all of my old, outstanding patches over the
next week. Some, I think, are OK for immediate push, even 'relatively
close to 2.2.8'.  Others may be too big a change to consider at this
point, and that's fine.  Just let me know if you guys think a particular
patch should be deferred until post-2.2.8 and I'll take it off the table.


This one, I think is OK for pre-2.2.8 -- what do you guys think?
OK to push?

--
Chuck