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

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the review!

[[snip]]

Peter Ekberg wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 03:35:37PM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > +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?

No it isn't part of the m4 interface, but neither does it build
or link with any libraries/library objects.  I'm not sure it would
be correct to call libtool in that case.  How do your MSVC patches
cope with compiling regular objects and linking regular executables?
Can you suggest what you think I should be doing here?

> 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.

I think Ralf just meant that I wasn't checking the return status
of lt_dlexit().  Why is checking stdout non-portable?

Cheers,
        Gary.
--
Gary V. Vaughan      ())_.  address@hidden,gnu.org}
Research Scientist   ( '/   http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker           / )=   http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool
Technical Author   `(_~)_   http://sources.redhat.com/autobook

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature