>> Can anyone recommend either a clean way to perform the ltmain.sh
>> surgery at bootstrap?
>
> Most needed surgery at bootstrap can be done by having a ./bootstrap
> script that contains...
Thanks Ralf!
In case anyone stumbles upon the same libtool -fopenmp problem, per
Ralf's suggestion my boo
Thanks Ben, I ended up going with ${#}, but $[#] also works nicely.
(Sorry for posting here, I did end up sending this to autoconf)
On 3/11/11 3:31 PM, "Ben Pfaff" wrote:
>"Too, Justin A." writes:
>> However, Autoconf expands $#. How can I escape $#, so that it
>> will remain as-is in the conf
"Too, Justin A." writes:
> However, Autoconf expands $#. How can I escape $#, so that it
> will remain as-is in the configure script? I just can't figure
> this one out :)
$[#] or $[@%:@] will avoid expansion.
(This is really an autoconf question.)
--
Ben Pfaff
http://benpfaff.org
Hi,
I have a simple function in an m4 file that is a convenience to output
information. The function takes two parameters
function foo () {
If test $# != 2 ; then
exit 1
fi
}
However, Autoconf expands $#. How can I escape $#, so that it will remain as-is
in the configure script? I just
Hello Rhys,
* Rhys Ulerich wrote on Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 09:03:06PM CET:
> Can anyone recommend either a clean way to perform the ltmain.sh
> surgery at bootstrap?
Most needed surgery at bootstrap can be done by having a ./bootstrap
script that contains something like
#! /bin/sh
autoreconf -vi
'Afternoon,
I've run into a known libtool hiccup where '-fopenmp' is not stored
within libsomething.la. Binaries later linked against libsomething.la
run into linker problems because -fopenmp is not specified at link
time. A workaround appears to be at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libto
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
[...]
> This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
> *really* using static linking in 2011?
Yes, in my company we link almost all our own libraries
statically to our own applications. (however, we use some own pkg-config)
(
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:03:16PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
> *really* using static linking in 2011?
I use it heavily e.g. to build debug tools for embedded systems where
the rootfs doesn't match my cross-toolchain.
With kind regar
> This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
> *really* using static linking in 2011?
I use static linking every day for the embedded target.
On 03/10/2011 01:03 PM, Roger Leigh wrote:
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 11:38:16AM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote:
You also have to support static linking.
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
Yes. Some embedded systems for example do
10 matches
Mail list logo
