Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> Bruce> Still has to have a "relay" Makefile.am
> bin_PROGRAMS = subdir/foo
> subdir_foo_SOURCES = subdir/foo.c subdir/bar.c ...
> AUTOMAKE_OPTIONS = subdir-objects
The context led me to believe he wanted to invoke "make"
in the subdirectories. Obviously, I could
> ">" == G L Grobe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> I got a few responses about needing a Makefile.am in these
>> directories, but are there any docs or examples of what the
>> contents of the recursive makefiles need to be anywheres?
Yes. Either the automake manual or the autobook will tell
I got a few responses about needing a Makefile.am
in these directories, but are there any docs or examples of what the
contents of the recursive makefiles need to be anywheres?
- Original Message -
From:
G.L. Grobe
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 10
Today, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>$ grep processor /proc/cpuinfo
>$ uname -a
>Linux eta 2.4.18-SMP #1 SMP Tue Mar 5 11:48:27 GMT 2002 alpha unknown
Ooops
Alphas always have homogenous processors, so they just have a line which
says:
cpus detected : #
Unfortunately this isn't the number of CPUs
Today, Eric Siegerman wrote:
>Rather:
>if (nprocs == -1) /* Value unavailable */
> exit(EXIT_ERROR);
>else if (nprocs == 0)
> nprocs = 1;
>
>> printf ("%ld\n",nprocs);
>> exit (EXIT_SUCCESS);
>> }
>
>Then if it exits with an error, proceed to your other tests.
Yes.
Philip Willoughby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|> Today, Philipp Gortan wrote:
|>
|> >case "$MACHTYPE" in
|> >~ i686-*-linux) test -f /proc/cpuinfo && \
|> >PROC_NR=`grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | \
|> >wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
|> >;;
|>
|> This s
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 06:00:14PM +0100, Philip Willoughby wrote:
> Today, Philipp Gortan wrote:
>
> >case "$MACHTYPE" in
> >~ i686-*-linux) test -f /proc/cpuinfo && \
> > PROC_NR=`grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | \
> > wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
> >
Dan Kegel wrote:
>The only project that I think should be using my patch is the
>gcc project, and only until they update to autoconf 2.53.
>Everyone else should move to autoconf 2.53 asap.
>
I agree completely, in fact, the entire sources.redhat.com cvs tree
needs to move on up to autoconf-2.53/
I would certainly agree, except that the gcc developers
tried and failed to update to 2.53; it's really involved to
update gcc's autoconf.
The only project that I think should be using my patch is the
gcc project, and only until they update to autoconf 2.53.
Everyone else should move to autocon
Today, Philipp Gortan wrote:
>case "$MACHTYPE" in
>~ i686-*-linux)test -f /proc/cpuinfo && \
> PROC_NR=`grep processor /proc/cpuinfo | \
> wc -l | awk '{print $1}'`
> ;;
This should work for *-*-linux* not just i686s.
>the script works f
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
hi community,
I am working on 3 machines simultaneously:
- - a linux box, 1 processor
- - a sun machine, 2 processors
- - and a sun machine, 4 processors
I'd like to have a script that guesses/reads out the number of
processors each machine has and
But, development and maintenance of 2.13 is dead for Autoconf proper. There have been
three
or four releases since then. If the developers who use Cygwin want to continue to
support
2.13 that's a different matter and those developers, someone like Dan Kegel, can
create the
patch there. Howev
12 matches
Mail list logo
