Re: Two small libltdl patches.

[Peter O'Gorman]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:

> Yes, certainly.  I think a NEWS entry would be good, too, as well as
> a test so we don't regress again.  What do you think of this?  You
> can squash it into your patch when you commit.

Thanks.

> 
> The test doesn't work on many systems (only those that need argz.c,
> and only those without leading underscore in symbol names) and skips
> resp. doesn't expose a failure elsewhere, but I think that should be
> sufficient.

I'd like this to fail for me on darwin (more likely to notice it), so I
will probably add:


> +AT_CHECK([eval "$NM \"\$argz_o\" | $global_symbol_pipe"],
> +      [], [stdout], [ignore])
> +AT_CHECK([grep "^T argz_" stdout], [1])

+AT_CHECK([grep "^T _argz_" stdout], [1])

> +
> +AT_CLEANUP

This should be fine, because all global symbols exported from argz.o
must be "lt__" prefixed.

Will commit with these changes later today.

Peter
-- 
Peter O'Gorman
http://pogma.com