Re: [PATCH] [cygwin|mingw]: Add cross-compile support to cwrapper (take 6)

[Charles Wilson]

On 8/26/2010 2:26 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> This is my current queue of libtool patches. They need more work.
> In particular, I don't know if 0008-Slashify-instead-of-backslashify
> is even remotely acceptable. The subject has been up before and I
> think Chuck had some issue with it, but don't remember what. I Can do
> some searching in my mailbox if that's important...

It was actually Roumen Petrov:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2008-04/msg00167.html

Our discussion was here:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-02/msg00008.html
and referenced Roumen's post.

However, that was 2.5 years ago, so we may need to just try Roumen's
test case again, on modern linux + modern WINE, and see if the problem
still occurs. It would be nice to avoid '\'.

And I just noticed that I never DID fix that "-m" vs "-d" issue when
invoking cygpath, so cygwin->mingw gets you "C:/foo", but unix->mingw
does "C:\\foo".

> Further, my patches regresses library searching, I think due to paths
> being converted from posix form to win32 form too early and then
> something fails to find dependent libraries. Possibly other problems
> too?
> 
> Perhaps most interesting are the patches
> 0002-Add-path-conversion-from-build-to-toolchain
> 0005-Convert-file-names-to-toolchain-format-in-NM-and-AR
> which *should* fix stresstest.at on MSYS (not confirmed, due to the above
> problems).

If we can verify that Roumen's reported issue no longer occurs, then I'd
fast-track 0008, 0002, 0003, and 0005 (presuming they can be applied
independently of the others, and no regressions).  Of course, you'd have
to practically rewrite 0002 given the new nomenclature:

lt_cv_to_tool_path_cmd -> lt_cv_to_tool_file_cmd
to_tool_path_cmd -> to_tool_file_cmd

don't use eval in func_to_tool_path() -- which should be named
func_to_tool_file{_name?}()

etc etc etc


If Roumen's report is still an issue, then we might have to work a
little harder.  Maybe accept the fork penalty?

I'll try to look into that tomorrow.

--
Chuck