Re: [PATCH] Add --lt-* options to shell wrapper

[Charles Wilson]

Charles Wilson wrote:
> * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_emit_wrapper)
> [func_parse_lt_options]: New function.
> [func_opts_contain_lt]: New function.
> [func_lt_dump_args]: New function.
> [func_exec_program_core]: New function, refactored from [main].
> [func_exec_program]: New function.
> [main]: Call func_parse_lt_options early. Use func_exec_program.
> (func_emit_cwrapperexe_src) [main]: Reword error message to
> align with (upcoming) documentation.
> ---
> For symmetry, support --lt-debug and --lt-dump-script in the shell
> wrapper, as well as in the cwrapper.

Ping?
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-07/msg00014.html

This is the second of a series of three patches, that encompass
previously proposed changes to the wrapper "system".  This one just
tries to ensure that both the w-script and the w-exe accept the same
--lt- options, and reject un-implemented --lt- ones.

It arose as a result of discussions surrounding
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-06/msg00031.html

It has been part of the cygwin libtool distribution for five months, and
the mingw libtool distribution for three.  However, since all platforms
(not just cygwin and mingw) use the wrapper script, this patch will
affect them, too.  I've tested on linux, where it works fine, but not
any other platforms.


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