On Sunday 22 April 2001 1:40 am, Kevin Ryde wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have either of you had any success with my workaround?
make ECHO=/bin/sh `pwd`/libtool --fallback-echo
Or something equivalent...
Not quite sure I understand. Should that be
gcc 2.95.3, SGI native ld.
[...]
FAIL: hardcode.test
411202:lt-hell: rld: Error: unresolvable symbol in lt-hell: foo
411202:lt-hell: rld: Error: unresolvable symbol in lt-hell: nothing
411202:lt-hell: rld: Fatal Error: this executable has unresolvable symbols
PASS: build-relink.test
[...]
Whoops, sorry, I should add that this was with:
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
Russ Allbery [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
gcc 2.95.3, SGI native ld.
[...]
FAIL:
Not like this is a surprise or anything, but for completeness
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... i686-pc-linux-gnu
checking build system
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.2.0
checking build system type... powerpc-ibm-aix4.3.2.0
checking for ld used by GCC...
I assume that these are mostly the known Solaris failures.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... sparc-sun-solaris2.8
checking build system
Identical results to sparc-sun-solaris2.8, with the same failing tests.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... sparc-sun-solaris2.6
checking build
Similar results to AIX 4.3, including the same error during configure.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... rs6000-ibm-aix4.2.1.0
checking build
There were some warnings during some of the tests, though.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host system type... alpha-dec-osf4.0f
checking build system type...
In regard to: 1.3e (1.910) test results for alpha-dec-osf4.0f (PASS), Russ...:
There were some warnings during some of the tests, though.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 03:04:37AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
There were some warnings during some of the tests, though.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking
Bernard Dautrevaux [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A necessary (and sufficient AFAICT) condition would be that, given the fact
that libtool remember library dependencies, one use a tsort-like tool to
topologically sort all the libraries, while detecting loops in the
dependencies, and emitting
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:10:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I was unable to even get the test suite to complete on this platform;
every time the mdemo tests ran, the program it was running went runaway
and had to be kill -9'd. I got tired of doing this by about the fifth
time. :/
Compile
Russ Allbery writes:
I was unable to even get the test suite to complete on this platform;
every time the mdemo tests ran, the program it was running went runaway
and had to be kill -9'd. I got tired of doing this by about the fifth
time. :/
Sounds familiar. Try the patch I just posted
While running ./configure for libtool 1.4 on a hppa1.1-hp-hpux11.00
system:
...
checking for dlfcn.h... yes
...
checking if libtool supports shared libraries... yes
checking for dlopen in -ldl... no
checking for dlopen... yes
checking whether a program can dlopen itself... yes
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 02:11:52PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This pertains to the HEAD branch.
When parsing the output of /bin/nm -p, libtool.m4 contains the
following sed statement to massage the output:
# Try without a prefix undercore, then with it.
for ac_symprfx in _; do
On Monday 23 April 2001 10:26 am, Russ Allbery wrote:
I assume that these are mostly the known Solaris failures.
Configuring libtool 1.3e (1.910 2001/04/23 00:34:53)
checking host
On Monday 23 April 2001 7:08 pm, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Russ Allbery writes:
I was unable to even get the test suite to complete on this platform;
every time the mdemo tests ran, the program it was running went runaway
and had to be kill -9'd. I got tired of doing this by about the
On Sunday 22 April 2001 7:09 am, you wrote:
Hello.
A friend told me the about your libtool 1.4 test mail, so I tried it on
a few platforms..
Great! Thankyou for posting your results. I am unable to reproduce your
quote.test failure on my Solaris 8 box with the current HEAD revision. If
On 23 April, 2001 - Gary V. Vaughan sent me these 6.3K bytes:
On Sunday 22 April 2001 7:09 am, you wrote:
Hello.
A friend told me the about your libtool 1.4 test mail, so I tried it on
a few platforms..
Great! Thankyou for posting your results. I am unable to reproduce your
On 23 April, 2001 - Gary V. Vaughan sent me these 6.3K bytes:
On Sunday 22 April 2001 7:09 am, you wrote:
Hello.
A friend told me the about your libtool 1.4 test mail, so I tried it on
a few platforms..
Great! Thankyou for posting your results. I am unable to reproduce your
On Monday 23 April 2001 2:00 am, I wrote:
I'm holding off the release for a day or two...
Revised release date tomorrow April 24, around 10pm GMT unless someone points
out a serious enough problem to me before then.
Cheers,
Gary.
--
___ _ ___ __ _
libtool [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 09:10:20AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
I was unable to even get the test suite to complete on this platform;
every time the mdemo tests ran, the program it was running went runaway
and had to be kill -9'd. I got tired of doing this by
On Apr 22, 2001, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It does retain the original behaviour on other platforms. The case
statement is only for particular hosts. All other hosts keep the
result from the fgrep test.
Indeed.
BTW, another possible solution is to compile with CFLAGS=-s. Compiling
without
On Apr 22, 2001, Martijn van Beers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe you should actually take a look at pkg-config instead of listening
to people talking about it inaccurately.
Err... Perhaps if I had been pointed at it, instead of having had the
impression it was some tool in an early design
25 matches
Mail list logo
