Re: [PATCH] tests: feed -no-undefined when linking libtool libraries

[Peter Rosin]

On 2012-09-26 14:57, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2012-09-22 05:31, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:

[Heavily snipped]

> Why not commit the sc_prohibit_test_const_follows_var improvement
> last, after fixing all violations?

That doesn't make sense, sorry. But the idea would have worked
initially, before the check first existed. I.e., write the check,
fixup violations and commit in smaller digestible chunks, then
finally commit the actual check preventing any new violations from
creeping in.

>> If not, I will branch before 962aa91, run the script, and then apply
>> the rest of master to that branch one patch at a time until I arrive
>> at a diff that I can apply to master itself, rather than using revert
>> as I did on the current temporary branch.
> 
> I have to say, given all these difficulties, is it really worth it?
> Besides, I think

Hmmm, I said that in the wrong context. Your plan above seems like the
best path forward. I guess I was too "excited" about the bugs and didn't
read properly, sorry again about my poor communication skills.

Some of the noise between master and redo-test-operand-order are a bunch
of hunks with this pattern:
-   if test bar $op $foo; then
+   if test bar $op $foo ; then

You should perhaps add a commit to redo-test-operand-order which silences
that and makes other more substantial changes stand out more before you
proceed with the above plan? There are perhaps other harmless changes
that can be excluded from the "light" revert? Because who needs the
oscillation?

BTW, here is another strange-looking hunk from
"git diff master redo-test-operand-order"

diff --git a/m4/libtool.m4 b/m4/libtool.m4
index 4413a6d..8ec9beb 100644
--- a/m4/libtool.m4
+++ b/m4/libtool.m4
@@ -5563,7 +5563,7 @@ _LT_EOF
       ;;
     esac
 
-    if test sni = "$host_vendor"; then
+    if test x$host_vendor = xsni; then
       case $host in
       sysv4 | sysv4.2uw2* | sysv4.3* | sysv5*)
        _LT_TAGVAR(export_dynamic_flag_spec, $1)='$wl-Blargedynsym'

What has caused the difference in this hunk? Why hasn't the script
caught this instance? And why isn't the syntax-check triggered?
Are the "missing" quotes the key here?

The check is named sc_prohibit_test_const_follows_var, so one
would guess that it should prohibit "test x$foo = xbar", no? Or are
you supposed to be able to dodge the check by needlessly adding x
in front of LHS $variables?

Cheers,
Peter