Re: [PATCH] Skip need_lib_prefix.at on systems without lib prefix on libraries.

[Peter Rosin]

Hi Ralf,

Den 2010-09-24 06:20 skrev Ralf Wildenhues:
> Hello Peter,
> 
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 08:44:43AM CEST:
>> need_lib_prefix.at currently fails with MSVC. I think the test
>> is there to ensure that "weird" systems continue to work even
>> if the testsuite is running on a "normal" system. "weird" in
>> this case are systems with need_lib_prefix set to "unknown" and
>> "normal" are those with it set to "no". However, there are
>> even weirder systems where need_lib_prefix should perhaps be
>> set to "never" (i.e. MSVC) but that currently simply sets it
>> to "no". "never" would perhaps be more appropriate since preopen
>> doesn't work right if libs have a lib prefix. I think OS/2 is
>> affected in the same way as MSVC, but I have no means to test
>> that.
>>
>> The below patch makes the need_lib_prefix.at test skip for the
>> even weirder systems, i.e. those where libname_spec does not
>> prefix library names with lib.
>>
>> Ok to push?
>>
>>
>> You may want to compare this patch with thread
>>
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2009-01/msg00174.html
>>
>> which instead makes the test pass for the even weirder systems,
>> but I don't think that is really desired. Why should the code be
>> changed to accommodate a contrived test case? Because this would
>> never happen in the wild, right?
> 
> The part about this patch which I'm unsure about is this:
> 
> Does the testsuite otherwise cover well enough the fact that users may
> name their modules with or without leading 'lib' prefix (and with .la or
> .dll or .so suffix or so)?
> 
> IOW, I'd like to be sure we're not hiding anything here.

But that is not a problem with *this* patch.  That's one of those gigantic
tasks that Chuck mentions from time to time.

This is not like the low max_cmd_len test.  In both cases the libtool
script is rigged to simulate weird conditions, but the need_lib_prefix
test is rigging something that never happens on platforms that never
create a lib prefix.  You should also not confuse this prefix with the
name of the .la file, the .la files are always allowed to have a lib
prefix, this is about the real libraries.

We have plenty of tests that create -modules named module.la without the
prefix, for example dlloader-api.la.  I'm not sure what you mean by users
naming their modules with various suffixes, as they must be named .la?

I get the feeling that I'm saying things that you already know, so I'm
probably missing something.  What?

> And yes, I think (part of) the log entry from the initial test addition
> probably deserves to be a comment in the test, so we don't have to look
> it up again.

Probably a good idea.  I'll add some words before pushing anything, but
I'd like this settled before doing anything further with the patch.

Cheers,
Peter