Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com
Subject: RE: [avail for test] readline-4.2-1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 14:50:38 +1000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.4417.0
Message-ID: <EA18B9FA0FE4194AA2B4CDB91F73C0EF08F043@itdomain002.itdomain.net.au>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: [avail for test] readline-4.2-1
Thread-Index: AcDuQx0oEZ84DwohTmuq84b2ZzW9PQAABQ+Q
From: "Robert Collins" <robert.collins@itdomain.com.au>
To: "Charles Wilson" <cwilson@ece.gatech.edu>
Cc: "Jason Tishler" <Jason.Tishler@dothill.com>,
        "Cygwin Users" <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id BAA19867

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Wilson [mailto:cwilson@ece.gatech.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2001 2:55 PM
> To: Robert Collins
> Cc: Jason Tishler; Cygwin Users
> Subject: Re: [avail for test] readline-4.2-1
> 
> 
> 
> > How autoconfiscated/libtoolised/automade is readline && 
> your patch? I'm
> > doing a chunk of work now on libtool and will investigate taking on
> > readline...
> 
> There are two issues: my current patch, and possible libtool 
> improvements:
> 
> 1) The patch has several parts: 
<snip>
> My changes are not libtool-based at all.  It seems, too, that 
> readline doesn't
> use libtool to build on Linux, either.  It appears that 
> readline is autoconf'ed,
> but not libtool'ed.

I grabbed the srcball and had a look-see. readline isn't libtool'ed. It
also isn't Automade - do you know if Chet has any objection to this in
principle?
(It's easier to add libtool to automake projects than to non-automake
projects).
 
> 2) Rumor has it that newer libtools can create dll's.  I have 
> not looked into
> this issue at all.  If you pursue this, the Makefiles will 
> probably change
> w.r.t. the original in a differet way than I have changed 
> them in 1-b).  Also, I
> do not know if libtool can deal with the appropriate #defines 
> and macros as in
> 1-a).

libtool creates .dll's and has for a while. It's documented in the goat
book. It's not documented clearly elsewhere unfortunately.

Libtool issues -DDLL_EXPORT to gcc when compile source that will become
part of a .DLL and doesn't when compiling static library source.

Most of the onus on .dll library creation rests on the programmer today
- using #defines like you have. I intend to change that, but not
overnight!. So yes it will handle what you've done in 1-a, with minor or
no changes. Some changes may make the source easier to grok, utilising
the libtool capabilities.

If you're interested I have a trivial helloworld sample with two
libraries, one dependent on the other, that builds in both static and/or
non-static mode with libtool 1.4. The point about it is that the code
changes can be very localised and minor. (And this covers exported
functions and variables accessible cross-dll) - rather like libpng and
linbz2.

Rob
 
> --Chuck
> 

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple