On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 9:28 PM, Greg Comeau wrote:
> In article ,
> Fernan Bolando wrote:
>>just curious is it normal for 8l to follow some sort of precendence
>>based on the commandline? this being done through ape/pcc
>>
>>this is unable to build
>>8l -o spice -v /386/lib/ape/libf2c.a spice.8 u
>and 8l will sort it out.
by which i meant: you then don't name any libraries at all,
since 8l will pick up the names from the references in the
include files. and therefore, as well as not having to name libf2c.a,
> you shouldn't need to mention libap.a,
the solution is to add
#pragma lib "/$M/lib/ape/libf2c.a"
to the include file that f2c's generated code uses,
and 8l will sort it out. you shouldn't need to mention libap.a,
either, since something should be including an ape include file
(and those have the #pragma libs)
In article ,
Fernan Bolando wrote:
>just curious is it normal for 8l to follow some sort of precendence
>based on the commandline? this being done through ape/pcc
>
>this is unable to build
>8l -o spice -v /386/lib/ape/libf2c.a spice.8 unix.8 /386/lib/ape/libap.a
>
>this was able to build
>8l -o s
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 08:41 -0800, "Rob Pike" wrote:
> someone should move those pages and all links from 2 to 8.
There's no problem accessing any ?l page with man(1), unless it's grown
a bug since I last pulled. I assume the problem is with web man indexes?
If so, shouldn't the indexing be fixed?
someone should move those pages and all links from 2 to 8.
-rob
>just curious is it normal for 8l to follow some sort of precendence
>based on the commandline? this being done through ape/pcc
it seems fairly logical; the procedure is somewhat unsportingly documented
in man page 2l(1).
just curious is it normal for 8l to follow some sort of precendence
based on the commandline? this being done through ape/pcc
this is unable to build
8l -o spice -v /386/lib/ape/libf2c.a spice.8 unix.8 /386/lib/ape/libap.a
this was able to build
8l -o spice -v spice.8 unix.8 /386/lib/ape/libf2c.a
