Re: [PATCH] [mingw] fix cross-compile-with-wine case

[Charles Wilson]

Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Charles,
>
> * Charles Wilson wrote on Sat, May 31, 2008 at 07:11:58PM CEST:
> > * libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_to_host_path)
> > [host=mingw, build!=mingw|cygwin]: check that winepath
> > stdout is non-empty and exit code is 0, instead of checking
> > stderr.
> > Reported by: Roumen Petrov
>
> OK, thanks!

> > +               test -n "${func_to_host_path_tmp1}" ; then
>
> You could simplfify these four lines to
>             func_to_host_path_tmp1=`winepath -w "$1" 2>/dev/null`
>             if test $? -eq 0 && test -n "${func_to_host_path_tmp1}"; then
>
> if the exit status isn't important to you for debugging purposes.

You're right. As pushed (with email addresses redacted), below. Note 
that I fixed the date on the the most recent commit (it's June 1, not 
May 1).

--
Chuck

To: address@hidden
From: Charles Wilson <address@hidden>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 13:11:58 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] [mingw] fix cross-compile-with-wine case
Cc: address@hidden

* libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh (func_to_host_path)
[host=mingw, build!=mingw|cygwin]: check that winepath
stdout is non-empty and exit code is 0, instead of checking
stderr.
Reported by: Roumen Petrov
---
Following the discussion here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2008-05/msg00087.html
and Roumen's tests, this seems like an obvious fix. Test suite 
passes with no regressions on cygwin (not that this patch affects
cygwin, but it confirms that no silly syntax errors crept in).

Ok to push (preferably before any 2.2.6 release)?
Chuck

 libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh |   20 ++++++++++++--------
 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

diff --git a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
index 144bc76..44e36de 100644
--- a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
+++ b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh
@@ -2555,17 +2555,21 @@ func_to_host_path ()
             ;;
           * )
             # Unfortunately, winepath does not exit with a non-zero
-            # error code, so we are forced to check stderr for an
-            # error message. On the other hand, if the command is not
-            # found, the shell will set an exit code of 127. So we
-            # must check for both, which explains the odd construction:
-            func_to_host_path_winepath_stderr=`winepath -w "$1" >/dev/null 
2>&1`
+            # error code, so we are forced to check the contents of
+            # stdout. On the other hand, if the command is not
+            # found, the shell will set an exit code of 127 and print
+            # *an error message* to stdout. So we must check for both
+            # error code of zero AND non-empty stdout, which explains
+            # the odd construction:
+            func_to_host_path_tmp1=`winepath -w "$1" 2>/dev/null`
             func_to_host_path_winepath_exitcode=$?
             if test "$func_to_host_path_winepath_exitcode" -eq 0 &&\
-               test -z "${func_to_host_path_winepath_stderr}" ; then
-              func_to_host_path_tmp1=`winepath -w "$1"`
-              func_to_host_path_result=`echo "$func_to_host_path_tmp1" |\
+               test -n "${func_to_host_path_tmp1}" ; then
+              func_to_host_path_result=`echo "$func_to_host_path_tmp1"|\
                 $SED -e "$lt_sed_naive_backslashify"`
+            else
+              # Allow warning below.
+              func_to_host_path_result=""
             fi
             ;;
         esac
-- 
1.5.5.1