Re: tagdemo test / -c -o
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > Sorry for self-reply. > > * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:08:14AM CET: > > * Tim Rice wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:41:22AM CEST: > > > > > > The native c/CC compilers on the that machine does not like -c -o > > > Is there a way to work around this, or is this an automake 1.9.6 bug? > > > > Oops. Does it work if you change the AC_PROG_CC_C_O to be > > AM_PROG_CC_C_O in libtool-1.5/tagdemo/configure.ac and rerun bootstrap? > > Gah. AM_PROG_CC_C_O is C only, not C++. > I guess you should be able to use this manually-written rule as a > workaround: > > .cpp.$(OBJEXT): > $(CXXCOMPILE) -c $< Or this patch to automake .. --- automake-1.9.6/automake.in.old 2005-06-30 14:17:13.0 -0700 +++ automake-1.9.6/automake.in 2005-10-29 18:31:51.565961323 -0700 @@ -691,7 +691,6 @@ 'compile' => '$(CXX) $(DEFS) $(DEFAULT_INCLUDES) $(INCLUDES) $(AM_CPPFLAGS) $(CPPFLAGS) $(AM_CXXFLAGS) $(CXXFLAGS)', 'compiler' => 'CXXCOMPILE', 'compile_flag' => '-c', - 'output_flag' => '-o', 'libtool_tag' => 'CXX', 'lder' => 'CXXLD', 'ld' => '$(CXX)', .. > > or this (uses undocumented Automake knowledge, thus not advised): > tagdemo_OBJECTS = tagdemo.lo > > Reminder to self (or whoever else): Automake needs to learn that C++ > and Fortran 77/90 compilers may not understand `-c -o'. > > Cheers, > Ralf > -- Tim RiceMultitalents(707) 887-1469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: tagdemo test / -c -o
Sorry for self-reply. * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 02:08:14AM CET: > * Tim Rice wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:41:22AM CEST: > > > > The native c/CC compilers on the that machine does not like -c -o > > Is there a way to work around this, or is this an automake 1.9.6 bug? > > Oops. Does it work if you change the AC_PROG_CC_C_O to be > AM_PROG_CC_C_O in libtool-1.5/tagdemo/configure.ac and rerun bootstrap? Gah. AM_PROG_CC_C_O is C only, not C++. I guess you should be able to use this manually-written rule as a workaround: .cpp.$(OBJEXT): $(CXXCOMPILE) -c $< or this (uses undocumented Automake knowledge, thus not advised): tagdemo_OBJECTS = tagdemo.lo Reminder to self (or whoever else): Automake needs to learn that C++ and Fortran 77/90 compilers may not understand `-c -o'. Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: tagdemo test / -c -o
Hi Tim, * Tim Rice wrote on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 01:41:22AM CEST: > > branch-1-5 > > I'm getting falures in the tagdemo-exec tests on my UnixWare 2.03 > box because of this rule in tagdemo/Makefile.in > . > cpp.o: > $(CXXCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $< > . > > The native c/CC compilers on the that machine does not like -c -o > Is there a way to work around this, or is this an automake 1.9.6 bug? Oops. Does it work if you change the AC_PROG_CC_C_O to be AM_PROG_CC_C_O in libtool-1.5/tagdemo/configure.ac and rerun bootstrap? Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
tagdemo test / -c -o
branch-1-5 I'm getting falures in the tagdemo-exec tests on my UnixWare 2.03 box because of this rule in tagdemo/Makefile.in . cpp.o: $(CXXCOMPILE) -c -o $@ $< . The native c/CC compilers on the that machine does not like -c -o Is there a way to work around this, or is this an automake 1.9.6 bug? -- Tim RiceMultitalents(707) 887-1469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: 1.5.22 ?
On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > I should be able to post all outstanding 1.5 stuff within the next, say, > > three days. OK? > > Sure. Don't hurry, just that I was a little surprised by the number of changes > in branch-1-5 and figured that a new release would be a good idea. A more > complete release is an even better idea :) I'm doing some testing on some patches from Kean Johnston that has made improvements on my UnixWare patch and made big improvements on OpenServer 5. I'd like to see them in the next release. I suspect Kean will not be able to post them to libtool-patches before monday or tuesday. -- Tim RiceMultitalents(707) 887-1469 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: 1.5.22 ?
Ralf Wildenhues wrote: I should be able to post all outstanding 1.5 stuff within the next, say, three days. OK? Sure. Don't hurry, just that I was a little surprised by the number of changes in branch-1-5 and figured that a new release would be a good idea. A more complete release is an even better idea :) Peter ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: 1.5.22 ?
Hi Peter, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sat, Oct 29, 2005 at 02:00:14PM CEST: > Hi, > I just looked at the ChangeLog on branch-1-5, there are quite a few > changes in the last 2 months... Yep. > So, I could do a 1.5.22 next week sometime, or Ralf might want to, > thoughts? Several thoughts: - After 1.5.20, I went through all patches Charles has incorporated in cygwin libtool 1.5.20. All of them were backports of CVS HEAD, (one was fixed differently, but we sorted that out). This was partially done on some list, partially offline. Since they're in cygwin libtool anyway, I want them in 1.5.22 as well. I merely refrained from applying them in the hope 2.0 would be out faster. But I really hate having yet another bug report where it's unclear whether the poster libtoolize'd with GNU or cygwin libtool. - I have a backload of patches I want to apply, both CVS HEAD and branch-1-5. Most prominently Howard Chu's `-static' fix, which I've finally been able to finish on with testing, and will apply. But also a couple of outstanding bug reports that need patches in, I'd like to do another sweep over the list of open bugs. - I don't mind doing 1.5.22, or you could, whatever. Only on weekends, though. Or maybe next Tuesday, it's a bank holiday over here. - Since I only have 2-3 patches of Gary's stack left to do, I hoped to finish them first. I should be able to post all outstanding 1.5 stuff within the next, say, three days. OK? Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
1.5.22 ?
Hi, I just looked at the ChangeLog on branch-1-5, there are quite a few changes in the last 2 months... So, I could do a 1.5.22 next week sometime, or Ralf might want to, thoughts? Peter ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
