On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: > On 2013-09-10 15:29, Ozkan Sezer wrote: >> On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >>> On 2013-09-10 15:00, Ozkan Sezer wrote: >>>> On 9/10/13, Peter Rosin <p...@lysator.liu.se> wrote: >>>>> On 2013-09-10 12:52, Ozkan Sezer wrote: >>>>>> That effectively cripples libtool for cross-compilers. Can the >>>>>> behavior >>>>>> be refined instead? Can you contact Charles Wilson about this? >>>>> >>>>> He should be reading this list, if he has time... >>>>> >>>>> Anyway, does this work? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, it does not. With this patch applied, I see >>>> sys_lib_search_path_spec="/opt/W64_180676/lib/gcc " >>>> .. in the libtool --config output. >>> >>> Crap, I didn't do any final test and managed to exclude a couple >>> of critical changes, and I did a couple of silly mistakes too. Sorry >>> about that. Attached is what I should have sent the first time... >>> >> >> Thanks, this one makes it to work. ./libtool --config output now has: >> >> sys_lib_search_path_spec="/opt/W64_180676/lib/gcc >> /opt/W64_180676/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib64 /opt/cross_win64/mingw/lib64 >> /opt/W64_180676/x86_64-w64-mingw32/lib /opt/cross_win64/mingw/lib " >> >> which is suitable. > > *snip* > >> Is it hard to implement a way of directly respecting --print-search-dirs >> output of the compiler though? > > Which is the crux of the matter, isn't it? The thing is, I'm not at all > comfortable with applying this change, and have no clue if it breaks > any existing setup. I mean, to me it seems obvious that if > -print-search-dirs outputs *both* a .../lib64 and a .../lib variant, then > someone really thought the tools should look in both places even if the > -print-multi-os-directory is ../lib64. But at the same time, it is very > likely that this loop in libtool (which is problematic for this case) > solves a real problem somewhere. Since I do not know why the loop is > there in the first place (the natural thing would be to simply trust > -print-search-dirs, just as you say) I'm uneasy to change it. > > Peter O'Gorman (explicitly CC:ed) added the loop [1], hopefully he can > fill in some blanks... > > Cheers, > Peter > > [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2006-10/msg00008.html >
OK then, I'll keep an eye on mails from this list. (On an irrelevant note, the archive pages at http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool/2013-09/index.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2013-09/index.html doesn't list any mails from me, but the ones from you from this thread are there, so I don't know whether any of the mails I send arrive at the list..) -- O.S. _______________________________________________ https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
