* /me wrote yesterday:
>
> Unless anyone has complaints about these patches, I'll probably apply
> within the couple of days.
Done now.
Cheers,
Ralf
HEAD:
2006-05-15 Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_COMPIL
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:30:31PM CEST:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > and note that with C++, your patch sets ${wl} to `-Qoption ld ' as well,
> > not to `-Wl,'.
>
> Yes. Indeed I don't know whether -Qoption ld arg1,arg2,arg3will
> pass arg1, arg2, arg3 separa
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> and note that with C++, your patch sets ${wl} to `-Qoption ld ' as well,
> not to `-Wl,'.
Yes. Indeed I don't know whether -Qoption ld arg1,arg2,arg3will
pass arg1, arg2, arg3 separately to the linker or glued together. I hope
the tests in libtool HEAD will detect wh
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > Yes. HP-UX /bin/sh is known to dump core in
> >
> > case `command that produces more than 1 KB of output` in
> >
> > and I don't know how much output other compilers generate when given the
> > -V option.
>
> But say, why is that HP-UX shell issue not listed in
Hi Bruno, all,
+ _LT_AC_TAGVAR(whole_archive_flag_spec,
$1)='${wl}--whole-archive`new_convenience=; for conv in
+$convenience\"\"; do test -z \"$conv\" ||
new_convenience=\"$new_convenience,$conv\"; done; $echo
\"$new_convenience\"`+${wl}--no-whole-archive'
>>>
>>>
Hello Ralf,
> Some notes:
> > *** 3353,3358
> > --- 3353,3379
> > # dependencies.
> > output_verbose_link_cmd='templist=`$CC -shared $CFLAGS -v
> > conftest.$objext 2>&1 | grep "ld"`; templist=`echo $templist | $SED
> > "s/\(^.*ld.*\)\( .*ld .*$\)/\1/"`; list=""; for z in $templi
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Wed, May 10, 2006 at 02:01:31PM CEST:
>
> Here is a revised patch. I changed the recognition of the Sun compilers,
> and the whole_archive_flag_spec and postdeps, so that now all 112 tests PASS.
Cool.
> > > With this patch, the FAILs are turned into PASS; all t
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, May 08, 2006 at 10:40:59PM CEST:
>
> > > The compiler executable for C is called 'c89' and 'c99' (two slightly
> > > different programs); for C++ it is called 'CC'.
> >
> > How unfortunate. Several compilers on GNU/Linux install themselves with
> > links or
Hello Ralf,
Thanks for the quick feedback.
> > The compiler executable for C is called 'c89' and 'c99' (two slightly
> > different programs); for C++ it is called 'CC'.
>
> How unfortunate. Several compilers on GNU/Linux install themselves with
> links or wrappers named c89 or c99. I don't thin
Hi Bruno,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, May 08, 2006 at 09:44:42PM CEST:
>
> Here is a patch that adds support for Sun's C and C++ compilers 5.9, ported
> from Solaris to Linux. They exist for x86 and x86_64; I tested it only on x86.
Thanks!
> The compiler executable for C is called 'c89' and 'c
Hi,
Here is a patch that adds support for Sun's C and C++ compilers 5.9, ported
from Solaris to Linux. They exist for x86 and x86_64; I tested it only on x86.
The compiler executable for C is called 'c89' and 'c99' (two slightly
different programs); for C++ it is called 'CC'.
Without this patch,
11 matches
Mail list logo
