Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 02:49:23PM CET: > On 12/06/2010 01:07 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>>OK to apply? > >> > >>Unless Pawel reports that it works for him, no. This doesn't make > >>sense to me.
> >Why? > > Well, perhaps I haven't been drinking enough coffee, but... Hehe. > >>> _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Xlinker ' > > This assignment didn't work, or was overwritten later. Where do you see that? As far as I understand, Paweł hasn't actually tried configuring Libtool with something like ./configure CC=nvcc because then the assignment will work. > >>>- _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-Xcompiler -fPIC' > > So, why will this make any difference? See above. > >>>+ if test -n "$_LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)"; then > >>>+ _LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)="-Xcompiler > >>>$_LT_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)" > >>>+ fi Of course the whole support currently won't work if you need to have both compilers CC=gcc and, say, NVCC=nvcc or so; to workaround you currently need a subpackage with a sub configure script where you override CC=$NVCC. We could fix that in the same way as the proposed Go patch: by explicitly introducing a new language called Cuda or so. I'm not disinclined, but since there exists no free version of this compiler this might politically be a bit "interesting", to say the least. I was wrong a bit in my last message though: the manual for version 2.0 does document --shared and -shared, and mentions that other flags necessary for shared libraries need to be passed through with -Xcompiler. Which matches my proposed patch. Cheers, Ralf
