On 29 May 2001 23:20:26 +0200, Teun Burgers wrote:
Hi
I am maintaining the configure script for
gnugo (http://www.fsf.org/software/gnugo/)
Under autoconf 2.13 when you had AC_EXEEXT
in you configure.in you could do under cygwin
a mingw32 build as follows:
env CC='gcc -mno-cygwin'
Tim Van Holder wrote:
On 29 May 2001 23:20:26 +0200, Teun Burgers wrote:
Hi
I am maintaining the configure script for
gnugo (http://www.fsf.org/software/gnugo/)
Under autoconf 2.13 when you had AC_EXEEXT
in you configure.in you could do under cygwin
a mingw32 build as follows:
Hello,
Sorry for the HTML, I'm bit surprised since Outlook is set (I just checked
it again !!) to send plain text
Yes I'm using AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM and I will get theses two files you
indicate me.
Thanks,
David.
- Original Message -
From: Tim Van Holder [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
Hello,
I hope outlook will let this real plain text ! ;-) Well, I'm trying to make
a configure.in file that support Canadian Cross compiling with the help of
the autobook 1.3.
First, I just would like to signal I was a bit surprised by this
AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM macro that does crash when you
David Burg wrote:
Hello,
I hope outlook will let this real plain text ! ;-) Well, I'm trying to make
a configure.in file that support Canadian Cross compiling with the help of
the autobook 1.3.
Well, I actually doubt you really want to build Canadian Cross, but
to be trying to implement
bash-2.04# CC=arm-linux-gcc
./configure --target=arm-linux --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking for c++... c++
(No, no, no I don't want to test c++, I want to test arm-linux-gcc ! )
If you are looking for a C compiler, you use AC_PROG_CC, and
optionally override CC; if you want a C++
On May 30, 2001, David Burg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
bash-2.04# CC=arm-linux-gcc ./configure --target=arm-linux
If you have a compiler for arm-linux, you want to specify
--host=arm-linux. host is the machine type on which the programs you
build are going to run. --target is only significant
On May 21, 2001, Akim Demaille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but in order to keep backward compatibility, 2.50 should probably just
stick to what 2.13 said.
Pavel, Alexandre, what shall we do?
I've been trying for days to find something useful to say about this.
I'm afraid I couldn't come up
