Hi Kevin,
On Wed, May 31, 2000 at 12:46:34AM -0400, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> On Tue, 30 May 2000, Ossama Othman wrote:
> > Thanks for the simple test. I just need to find a Solaris system with
> > a busted libstdc++ installation, i.e. one that built without
> > "--enable-shared."
>
> That should not be too difficult because that is the default option when
> building gcc.
Right. The problem is that we were aware of the problem with gcc
attempting to link a static libstdc++ on Solaris so we built all of our
gcc installations with "--enabled-shared."
> > out the AC_LIBTOOL_CXX, so the C++ support is really transparent now
> > (well, theoretically :-).
>
> Oh, that well it is insisting on having the unneeded ltcf-gcj.sh in the
> current directory if it is missing I get:
>
> ...
> loading cache ./config.cache
> ltconfig: `./ltcf-gcj.sh' does not exist
> Try `ltconfig --help' for more information.
> configure: error: libtool tag configuration failed
>
> Not that big of a deal but quite annoying, especially since libtoolize
> doesn't install it for you.
Hmm. Alexandre? In any case, if Alexandre doesn't get a chance to fix this
problem, I'll take a look at it tomorrow when I get in.
> Another thing, what version of autoconf/automake due you recommend
> using? Using the CVS version I get all sorts of warning over obsolete
> variables, but don't want to change them as that will loose all hope with
> working with the released version. I remember trying the released version
> and had some problems with automake making the file <exec>.C as the
> executable....
I'm currently using Autoconf 2.13 and Automake 1.4. However, Alexandre is
using the CVS Automake. I'm going to switch to the CVS Automake very soon,
too. Alexandre, Gary, Thomas, which version of Autoconf are you guys
using?
-Ossama
--
Ossama Othman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Distributed Object Computing Laboratory, Univ. of California at Irvine
1024D/F7A394A8 - 84ED AA0B 1203 99E4 1068 70E6 5EB7 5E71 F7A3 94A8
