[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin]
From: |
Charles Wilson |
Subject: |
Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin] |
Date: |
Sat, 19 Jun 2010 16:43:36 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.6.666 |
On 6/19/2010 4:38 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 09:26:54PM CEST:
>> Peter's patch helped to localize and identify the issue. The attached
>> fixes this regression on cygwin, but...I wonder if it is the Right Thing
>> To Do. Comments?
>
> Seems sensible. I think I prefer something like
>
> eval `$LIBTOOL --config | grep 'shlibpath_var='`
> if test -n "$shlibpath_var"; then
> CPPFLAGS="$CPPFLAGS -DLT_MODULE_PATH_VAR=\"$shlibpath_var\""
> fi
>
> over including toplevel config.h though; and using ifdef in the code, to
> cater for systems without such a variable.
OK.
Can I assume that putenv() is present on all systems that have a
shlibpath_var? Can all such systems dlopen module.so, IF module.so
depends on other .so's (like libc.so) that are in LD_LIBRARY_PATH --
even after I clobber LD_LIBRARY_PATH this way? I dunno...which means I
need to at least test on linux, but more coverage on other systems would
be nice...
> Again, please leave 48 hours for comments before committing.
Oh, I'll post a "real" patch on libtool-patches first, then
wait...probably longer than 48 hours, since the patch should probably be
tested on a wide variety of platforms, intrusive as it is.
It may only have two lines of changes, but they're...powerful.
--
Chuck
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], (continued)
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/06/16
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Charles Wilson, 2010/06/16
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Charles Wilson, 2010/06/19
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/06/19
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Charles Wilson, 2010/06/19
- Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Bob Friesenhahn, 2010/06/16
Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Charles Wilson, 2010/06/17
Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Ralf Wildenhues, 2010/06/19
Re: [libtool 2.2.11a] testsuite: 48 69 92 failed [cygwin], Peter Rosin, 2010/06/12