[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: MSYS+MSVC for libtool branch-2-0, take 7

From: Ralf Wildenhues
Subject: Re: MSYS+MSVC for libtool branch-2-0, take 7
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 13:00:36 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

Hi Peter,

* Peter Ekberg wrote on Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:18:03AM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Thanks a lot for the overview.
> No problem.
> > I have a couple of comments for stuff you have not split out yet,
> > see below (and a couple of issues I have not looked at yet; but I
> > did not want to wait even longer with this mail).
> Regarding splitting things out, How small chunks should I make?

Ideally: small enough so they are still self-contained, plus easy to
review.  Realistically, time is finite, so don't waste too much on this.

> I mean, the "lib as archiver" seems like a unit. As is the case
> with "dumpbin as name lister". The rest is also a unit in some
> sence as it's all to do with support for MSVC, perhaps a natural
> boundary is C vs C++. Should I also split C support into basic
> support and fixes for various elaborate test cases?

Naa, do three patches: "lib as archiver", "dumpbin as name lister",
and MSVC support.  Maybe split out the file_magic_glob part too as
it's easy to review.

I'm still very unsure about the "lib as archiver" patch, esp as to the
naming of the new variables.  Maybe
  $AR $AR_FLAGS $AR_OFLAG$libname $objects
is better, with $AR_OFLAG empty on *nix, and $AR_FLAGS empty for "lib"?
Maybe such a style is easier to copy for Automake?
(Better keep this discussion to the respective thread, though.)

> Do you have any guidance on how I generate such a patch
> series using cvs, and how I keep it up to date? Should I just
> split it out bit by bit and do it the slow way, one patch at
> a time? I could manage when it was a handfull of unrelated
> oneliners, but this is more intricate...

I've always wanted to look at quilt..
but what I actually do is just a bunch of diff output that gets applied
and reverse applied.  If you want to know the ugly way: When splitting
up a large diff, I just go through it linearly and move the chunks as 
I go along.  No, this is far from optimal or "nice".  Once you have it
separated, things should work more or less straightforward.

I believe your patch and Keith's proposed patch for "-sobase" interact
(i.e., -sobase support would have to be forward ported into your patch.)

> > >   cl -Tp -Tp
> > Hmm, I thought there were a non-position dependent option for 
> > cl.exe to

> > so you should be fine with CC='cl -TC'.  Does that work with your
> > version as well?
> (Sorry for not mentioning -TC and -TP, but I ruled them out as
>  useless, maybe that was hasty, but I can't think of a way to
>  use them)
> I have them, but CC='cl -TP' is no good. The -TP switch has the
> bad effect of really compiling *all* files as .cpp, which is
> not what you want. If you for example do
>       cl -TP wsock32.lib
> the dang tools will barf on the library not being C++.


> So, the only way to use -TP and -TC is to always compile first
> (with -c switch) and then link. I think libtool always does it
> this way so that may not be a problem?

Yes, libtool requires separated modes for compilation and linking.

> But you still can't add -TP to $CC as $CC is also used to link.
> So you have to add -TP to CPPFLAGS, but I didn't find a
> corresponding variable for C++, so you want different CPPFLAGS
> for C and C++. Is there such a beast as CXXCPPFLAGS or whatever
> it may be called? Can tags be of use here? (I'm pretty ignorant
> when it comes to tag variables)

We could just weed out -TP and -TC in func_mode_link.  Then you can put
them in CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, or even CC/CXX, which I believe is a good
thing.  CPPFLAGS would have been more correct, but it's shared between C
and C++.

> > Still, we should think of changing ac_ext so it works out of the box.
> > Doesn't this need a patch against Autoconf?
> One reason to change ac_ext to .cpp is that the sources in
> the tests use .cpp, so that is what you should test for.
> Perhaps not a great reason, and I'm biased as I'm a lazy
> person...

Well, the question is not how to make it easier for the testsuite to
work but for the users in the end.  They are not going to rename their
files too *.cpp, so we'll have to cope anyway.

> > > Also, since MSVC uses @ and ? in C++ symbols (it also
> > > uses @ for __fastcall C symbols for that matter) I'm
> > > unsure of how ltdlopen (and preopen) will work...
> > 
> > Later.

Let's just see about this when we something breaks.

> > > * Support for NM="dumpbin -symbols" as the name lister.
> > 
> > Nice!
> Maybe not so great though. I recently downloaded the free
> C++ 2003 Toolkit and the latest Platform SDK and dumpbin
> was not included. I wonder if support for this tool has
> been dropped? Does anybody know?
> I did a search on MSDN and there is no information
> provided in the Visual Studio 2003 docs, when I look
> in the place dumpbin was documented in previous MSVCs.
> Dropping support for dumpbin is not mentioned in changes
> so perhaps the docs has just moved. I don't think so
> however, it looks like dumpbin is a goner.
> And I can't find a tool that can fill the gap. Crap! Help!

Hmm.  Online MSDN docs don't seem to reveal any deprecation on first

> Maybe I should just give up and say that some tools from
> binutils are required. No big deal really.

Well, if we can make the code work in both cases, even better.
If not, OK by me to just use `nm' then -- it's very likely to
be present due to mingw anyway.

> The "lib as archiver" patch is still needed though, as
> this seems like the easiest way to get at all symbols
> from a library with so many objects that the max command
> line length is exceeded (pdemo.test), as the Microsoft
> linker does not seem to support reloadable objects.
> You *could* extract symbols from one object at a time
> and merge the outcome, but I think that would be a much
> bigger change.

I'm still not convinced that we don't end up having more trouble with
paths encoded into the archive.  But since "lib" does that anyway, I
guess we might just have to care for all bad cases (see that we don't
encode paths, but expect encoded paths in other libs).  

I must admit I haven't checked your patch closely w.r.t this yet.

> > > Here's the output from make check, when configured with:
> > > configure CC=cl CFLAGS=-MD CXX=cl CXXFLAGS=-MD LD=link 
> > AR=lib STRIP=:
> > > NM="dumpbin -symbols" F77=:
> > > 
> > > This is my environment:
> > 
> > Could you be bothered to run the new test suite as well for this
> > environment?
> >   make check TESTS=
> > (adding TESTSUITE_FLAGS="-v" or also "-d" comes in handy at times, but
> > the autotest test suite saves a lot of interesting state by default.)
> > 
> > Show testsuite.log and whatever else you deem interesting.
> You mean "new test suite" as in "test suite in HEAD", right?

Yes.  Could you try it?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]