Hi, On Sat, 28 May 2011, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > Em 28-05-2011 17:44, Johannes Schindelin escreveu: > > On Sat, 28 May 2011, Cesar Eduardo Barros wrote: > > > [...] > > > @@ -1551,6 +1554,11 @@ ifdef USE_NED_ALLOCATOR > > > COMPAT_OBJS += compat/nedmalloc/nedmalloc.o > > > endif > > > > > > +ifdef APPLICATION_MANIFEST > > > + # Cannot be in LIB_OBJS because it must always be linked in > > > + RESOURCE_OBJS += compat/win32/resource.o > > > +endif > > > + > > > ifdef GIT_TEST_CMP_USE_COPIED_CONTEXT > > > export GIT_TEST_CMP_USE_COPIED_CONTEXT > > > endif > > > [...] > > > > > > -git$X: git.o $(BUILTIN_OBJS) $(GITLIBS) > > > +git$X: git.o $(BUILTIN_OBJS) $(RESOURCE_OBJS) $(GITLIBS) > > > [...] > > > > > > -git-%$X: %.o $(GITLIBS) > > > +git-%$X: %.o $(RESOURCE_OBJS) $(GITLIBS) > > > [...] > > > > Is it possible that adding the resource object to GITLIBS would reduce > > the patch and be "more correct", too? > > I thought about it, but it felt wrong. It is not a library, it is an > object. Well, a library is a collection of objects. A .a file traditionally contains also .o files that define both global and local variables. Even so, let's assume for a moment that you're right and a library is a library of functions (which I assume that you assume), and let's ignore for a moment that GITLIBS provides non-functions such as inside_git_dir and auto_crlf. Then the approach of adding another $(RESOURCE) in exactly all the places where we have $(GITLIBS) is so redundant that it asks for future inconsistencies (somebody _will_ forget, because things still compile). In that case, one patch to rename GITLIBS to, say, COMMON_OBJECTS, and another patch to add the manifest to the common objects. But as I said, IMHO GITLIBS is aptly named and should take the resource, too. > Also, while adding it to GITLIBS would add the object to all the right > rules (in fact, I did a search for GITLIBS to find all the places to add > the new object to), I believe it would get the object linked twice in > some of the rules (the ones which do a $(filter %.o,$^) would get it > both from GITLIBS via the filter and from GITLIBS via $(LIBS) on the > command line). Does it result in a link error? If not, it's not an issue. Ciao, Johannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html