Re: [patch #6448] [MSVC 7/7] Add MSVC Support

[Peter Rosin]

Hi Ralf,

Ralf Wildenhues skrev:
> Hi Peter,
>
> * Peter Rosin wrote on Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 08:47:12AM CEST:
> > One easy way to avoid cc_basename is to simply leave this for the next
> > non-gnu tool to fix, i.e.:
> >
> > --- a/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
> > +++ b/libltdl/m4/libtool.m4
> > @@ -3024,7 +3024,12 @@ case $reload_flag in
> >  esac
> >  reload_cmds='$LD$reload_flag -o $output$reload_objs'
> >  case $host_os in
> > +  cygwin* | mingw* | pw32* | cegcc*)
> > +    if test "$GCC" != yes; then
> > +      reload_cmds=false
> > +    fi
> > +    ;;
>
> Hmm, a bit better.  What about something like this?
>   
> case $host_os in
>   cygwin* | mingw* | pw32* | cegcc*)
>     if test "$GCC" != yes; then
>       case $LD in
>       link* | LINK* | lib* | LIB* ) reload_cmds=false ;;
>       esac
>     fi
>     ;;
>    ...
>
> If you think that is overkill, then please say so.

There is a major(?) problem with that, and that is that you have to
look at $CC (and thus cc_basename) to automatically determine $LD. So,
your suggestion will require an additional LD=link argument to
configure (and would not allow for e.g. LD=/some/path/link, but that
could be fixed).

Currently $LD is not used (to my knowledge) by any code path when
using MSVC, so that requirement is a bit unfortunate.

Sorry for not making this point in my previous post when you mentioned
$LD the first time...

So, I guess I'm saying that I'd prefer sticking to:
    if test "$GCC" != yes; then
      reload_cmds=false
    fi

Ok to push?

> I'm thinking of two problem cases:
> - could be someone would like to use cccl with GNU binutils ld

I have wasted quite a bit of time trying to make cccl work. Can someone
pleasepleaseprettypleasewithsugerontop point me to the *exact* cccl
script I should use, what environment I should have and how I should
configure to make it work?

> - could be another non-GCC compiler (we've had reports about
>   those on w32 before, I don't remember whether that was Portland or so)
>
>
> FWIW, did you know that 'w32' to me just means "Windows, 32bit"?  ;-)

Err, yes, what makes you make that statement? The same goes for me, but
cygwin is also w32 but most of the time you are best off if you forget
that when you are using cygwin, and that's one of the reasons the name
w32 is not all that useful. When I'm aware of what I'm doing I try to
hold back any use of w32, it's generally too unspecific. Any time I see
w32, I think: "Ok, what is not included this time?"

> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> PS: I'm aware of other loose ends in this thread.  I'll get to them
> eventually, hopefully.  ;-)  Feel free to ping me if I haven't by the
> end of next (not this) weekend.

I will, thanks in advance!

Cheers,
Peter