Re: [PATCH] Correct link mode tag inference (Was: tag inference broken?)

[Bob Friesenhahn]

On Wed, 31 Dec 2003, Scott James Remnant wrote:

> I'd like to commit this, it seems to fix the problem.  Are there any
> objections?

If libtool still passes its test suite, then I have no objection.

Bob

>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> From: Scott James Remnant <address@hidden>
> To: Peter O'Gorman <address@hidden>
> Cc: Libtool <address@hidden>
> Subject: Re: tag inference broken?
> Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2003 23:25:59 +0000
>
> On Sun, 2003-12-07 at 23:18, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
>
> > Scott James Remnant wrote:
> >
> > | On Sat, 2003-12-06 at 15:14, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > |>Looks like it is simply infering too early in link mode.
> > |>
> > |
> > | Yeah, my last patch moved the code to before the rest of the argument
> > | parsing to make -shared, -static and -all-static work with a tagged
> > | configuration.
> > |
> >
> > Actually, I "fixed" it much more simply by changing the
> > case "$base_compile "
> > to
> > case "$base_compile $@" in both places in link mode.
> >
> That'd work too, as far as I can see the loop just sticks every $arg
> into $base_compile anyway.
>
> Hell, we could probably get away with the following patch and that'd
> probably result in exactly the same thing, there's nothing that breaks
> out of that loop.
>
> Scott
> --
> Have you ever, ever felt like this?
> Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?
>
>

======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen