Re: 280-gary-test-old-m4-interface.diff

[Peter Ekberg]

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Okay to commit?
> 
> Make a start at a test group for checking that backwards compatibility
> with configure.in calls to our old m4 interface does not regress.

Ok, I'm too much of a libtool newbie to understand the details of that,
but the test appears to be designed to test the m4 interface...

*snip*

> +AT_DATA([Makefile.in],
> +[[COMPILE = @CC@ @CPPFLAGS@ @CFLAGS@
> +LINK = @CC@ @CFLAGS@ @LDFLAGS@ -o $@
> +
> +all: address@hidden@
> +
> address@hidden@: address@hidden@
> +     $(LINK) address@hidden@
> +
> address@hidden@:
> +     $(COMPILE) -c $<
> +]])

Can we not use libtool compile/link mode instead so that the
test does not break with my MSVC patches? I mean, since the
test is for the m4 interface, or is this somehow part of the
m4 interface?

*snip*

> +AT_DATA([Makefile.in],
> +[[INCLUDES = -I./libltdl
> +COMPILE    = @CC@ @CPPFLAGS@ $(INCLUDES) @CFLAGS@
> +LTCOMPILE  = @LIBTOOL@ --mode=compile $(COMPILE)
> +LTLINK     = @LIBTOOL@ --mode=link @CC@ @CFLAGS@ @LDFLAGS@ -o $@
> +
> +TARGETS    = libltdl/libltdlc.la module.la address@hidden@
> +
> +all: $(TARGETS)
> +
> +libltdl/libltdlc.la:
> +     cd libltdl && ./configure && $(MAKE)
> +
> +module.la: module.lo
> +     $(LTLINK) module.lo -rpath /dev/null
> +
> address@hidden@: address@hidden@
> +     $(LTLINK) address@hidden@ -dlopen module.la ./libltdl/libltdlc.la
> +
> address@hidden@:
> +     $(COMPILE) -c $<
> + 

Dito.

> +.c.lo:
> +     $(LTCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $<
> +]])
> +

*snip*

The other issue I found was the checking of stdout, which does not
seem to be portable, but I think Ralf covered that in his review.

Cheers,
Peter