FAIL: demo-make.test
Using source updated Mar 12 11:42 GMT on NetBSD-1.5S/i386 I have a few failed tests. In directory tests running demo-conf.test then demo-make.test gives... creating hell /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static -static main.o libhello.la gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static main.o ./.libs/libhello.a -lm gmake: *** No rule to make target `helldl', needed by `all-am'. Stop. In demo/Makefile: BUILD_helldl = helldl bin_PROGRAMS = hell hell.static $(BUILD_helldl) helldl_SOURCES = dlmain.c helldl_LDFLAGS = -export-dynamic -dlpreopen libhello.la helldl_DEPENDENCIES = libhello.la etc, so I don't really see why... Is it worth trying the multi-language-branch instead? Cheers, Patrick ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: FAIL: demo-make.test
On Monday 12 March 2001 7:08 pm, Patrick Welche wrote: > Using source updated Mar 12 11:42 GMT on NetBSD-1.5S/i386 I have a few > failed tests. In directory tests running demo-conf.test then demo-make.test > gives... > > creating hell > /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static -static main.o > libhello.la gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static main.o ./.libs/libhello.a -lm > gmake: *** No rule to make target `helldl', needed by `all-am'. Stop. > > > In demo/Makefile: > > BUILD_helldl = helldl > bin_PROGRAMS = hell hell.static $(BUILD_helldl) > helldl_SOURCES = dlmain.c > helldl_LDFLAGS = -export-dynamic -dlpreopen libhello.la > helldl_DEPENDENCIES = libhello.la > > etc, so I don't really see why... > > Is it worth trying the multi-language-branch instead? If you can help us figure this out, it will save us making the next release with the bug in it. I recommend trying the test suite again after a `make maintainer-clean' and rebootstrapping the tree -- this sometimes fixes things for me. Are you using CVS automake by any chance? HEAD libtool has had a lot of testing with automake-1.4, perhaps there is a transitory bug in automake? Either way, an examination of Makefile,in might shed some light on the matter. Cheers, Gary. -- ___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \ \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/ home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key: http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: FAIL: demo-make.test
- Original Message - From: "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Patrick Welche" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:47 PM Subject: Re: FAIL: demo-make.test > On Monday 12 March 2001 7:08 pm, Patrick Welche wrote: > > Using source updated Mar 12 11:42 GMT on NetBSD-1.5S/i386 I have a few > > failed tests. In directory tests running demo-conf.test then demo-make.test > > gives... > > > > creating hell > > /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static -static main.o > > libhello.la gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static main.o ./.libs/libhello.a -lm > > gmake: *** No rule to make target `helldl', needed by `all-am'. Stop. this is due to an automake limitation in cvs (i don't know about the released automake). akim demaille reports a number of people have solved this already. my particular fix (which i call the partially specified conditional target patch) is mentioned here: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/automake/2001-03/msg00162.html and even here: http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/libtool/2001-March/004426.html > > > > > > In demo/Makefile: > > > > BUILD_helldl = helldl > > bin_PROGRAMS = hell hell.static $(BUILD_helldl) > > helldl_SOURCES = dlmain.c > > helldl_LDFLAGS = -export-dynamic -dlpreopen libhello.la > > helldl_DEPENDENCIES = libhello.la > > > > etc, so I don't really see why... > > > > Is it worth trying the multi-language-branch instead? > > If you can help us figure this out, it will save us making the next release > with the bug in it. > > I recommend trying the test suite again after a `make maintainer-clean' and > rebootstrapping the tree -- this sometimes fixes things for me. > > Are you using CVS automake by any chance? HEAD libtool has had a lot of > testing with automake-1.4, perhaps there is a transitory bug in automake? > Either way, an examination of Makefile,in might shed some light on the matter. > > Cheers, > Gary. > -- > ___ _ ___ __ _ mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > / __|__ _ _ ___ _| | / / | / /_ _ _ _ __ _| |_ __ _ ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > | (_ / _` | '_|// / |/ /| |/ / _` | || / _` | ' \/ _` | _ \ > \___\__,_|_|\_, /|___(_)___/\__,_|\_,_\__, |_||_\__,_|//_/ > home page: /___/ /___/ gpg public key: > http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk http://www.oranda.demon.co.uk/key.asc cheers, edward ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Re: FAIL: demo-make.test
On Mon, Mar 12, 2001 at 03:09:54PM -0500, edward wrote: ... > > On Monday 12 March 2001 7:08 pm, Patrick Welche wrote: > > > Using source updated Mar 12 11:42 GMT on NetBSD-1.5S/i386 I have a few > > > failed tests. In directory tests running demo-conf.test then > demo-make.test > > > gives... > > > > > > creating hell > > > /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=link gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static -static > main.o > > > libhello.la gcc -g -O2 -o hell.static main.o ./.libs/libhello.a -lm > > > gmake: *** No rule to make target `helldl', needed by `all-am'. Stop. > > this is due to an automake limitation in cvs (i don't know about the > released automake). akim demaille reports a number of people have solved > this already. my particular fix (which i call the partially specified > conditional target patch) is mentioned here: > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/automake/2001-03/msg00162.html I hate to say this, but when I added the automake.in patch from here, I then had FAIL: pr19.test FAIL: pr87.test FAIL: subdirbuiltsources.test Then again this is with today's 1.978 automake.in, so your patch might need modification? > http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/libtool/2001-March/004426.html didn't understand this one.. > > Are you using CVS automake by any chance? HEAD libtool has had a lot of > > testing with automake-1.4, perhaps there is a transitory bug in automake? Yes I am using CVS automake here, though all its checks pass (without the aforementioned patch) > > Either way, an examination of Makefile,in might shed some light on the > matter. Indeed - more later... Cheers, Patrick ___ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
