Re: About win32 impgen.c patch (fwd)

[Paul Sokolovsky]

Bob Friesenhahn wrote:

[]

> > > Comments?  Should pw32 be tracking Cygwin and MinGW in libtool rather
> > > than being left behind?
> >
> >         Yes, please, if it's not hard, pw32 can follow the same sequence as 
> > mingw.
> >
> >         As for general point of removing (parts of) impgen.c, I cannot give
> > adequate answer as I don't have sources handy. IIRC, it belongs to ld.
> > And it's nice to have ability to create all the DLL stuff (even adhoc
> > bits like implib) with mere ld (== it's easier for non-win32-savvy
> > people to port the stuff). On the other point, there's duplication of
> > functionality with dlltool...
>
>
> Due to advances in binutils, both Cygwin and MinGW no longer use
> impgen, or even dlltool, from libtool.  I assume it that pw32 benefits
> from the same gcc/binutils enhancements.

	Nice to hear, that's what I always dreamed of. My point is that even if 
they are not used most of the time, they probably could still stay with 
binutils, as a possible means to extend support to win ce/non-ix86/etc.

> Do you recommend that all libtool cases which look like
>
> cygwin* | mingw* )
>
> be extended to
>
> cygwin* | mingw* | pw32*)
>
> and the cruft currently attributed to pw32 (using impgen and dlltool)
> be removed?

	Yes, exactly. If there're different paths for cygwin and mingw 
somewhere, pw32 can follow mingw.

> There is no one currently supporting the pw32 support in libtool, and
> until yesterday, none of the currently active maintainers even knew
> what pw32 was.  This means that pw32 support in libtool has fallen
> into disrepair.

	Well, I know that pw32 is in some use (even though I do not do active 
development of it now). If it won't take much of effort from 
maintainers, I'd appeciate the changes discussed.

> Bob
> ======================================
> Bob Friesenhahn


Thanks, 

--
Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist
http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135