Re: [PATCH] tests: import variables for MSVC.

[Charles Wilson]

On 9/24/2010 8:44 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> Yes indeed, I intended __declspec.  I have revised the patch so that it
> handles "building" correctly (dllexport for dlls, not for static) and
> "using" the best way possible (still dllimports from from both dlls and
> static libs).

Well, I'm confused.  The linker really ought to fail in this case, since
dllimport mangles the symbol name IIRC -- and the mangled name is not
present in the static lib.

> For Cygwin I removed some dead code in tests/pdemo,
> similar code was deleted from tests/demo back in 2002 (see commit
> 45d16ee8bf4559d6b976bfd4d6482767f16eac95).  I have verified that the
> Cygwin related cleanup does not affect the Cygwin testsuite results.

Always good to know.

> With this patch, the old testsuite SKIPs cdemo-undef and tagdemo-undef,
> FAILs demo-deplibs(1) and all the rest PASS (on MSYS/MSVC).  So it is
> looking really nice.

That's great. (Still confused, tho).

> That documentation would be nice, yes, and I plan to write something about
> that eventually.  Is it a prerequisite for pushing this?

IMO, we should probably document it before 2.4.2...

>> Of course, if libtool can somehow help with this any more, so much the
>> better.  But I'm less optimistic on this than I was those five years
>> ago.  :-/
> 
> Yes, and with auto-import in place for gnu tools on w32, the itch is gone
> for a whole bunch of people.

Well, Bruno Haible still hates auto-import.  He has wanted a certain
patch in libtool for a long time, but I still don't understand whether
doing so would break existing expectations and force everybody to use
his method, or if it would basically have no effect for most of us yet
enable his method...

http://www.haible.de/bruno/woe32dll.html

>> Also, may I remind you that you promised a number of testsuite additions
>> before the release.
> 
> I have been digging in the archives for quite a bit, but I'm only finding
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2010-09/msg00266.html
> 
> What else have I promised?

I think it was kinda given that the new functionality would need tests
(for anything not also covered by existing ones).  Maybe manifests
('course, IIRC the end user needs to explicitly set MT before running
the testsuite, which is kindof odd).

Some of the "promised tests" are on my plate, and relate to
non-msvc-specific stuff, which msvc leverages.

Patch (as revised) is fine with me.

--
Chuck