> -Original Message-
> From: Akim Demaille [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 1:40 PM
> To: Alexandre Oliva
> Cc: Peter Eisentraut; Morten Eriksen; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: AC_OBJEXT again
>
> | But I&#
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So the real question is, what happens when you use -o conftest? Will
> the cross-compiler and native Win compilers produce conftest, or/and
> conftest.exe? As long as conftest.exe is created when one `-o
> conftest', we're doing good.
>
AFAIKT,
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 09:22:08PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: +# Ignore .d files produced by CFLAGS=-MD.
: +#
: +# On UWIN (which uses a cc wrapper for MSVC), the compiler also generates
: +# a .pdb file
: +#
: +# When the w32 free Borland C++ command line compiler links a program
: +# (con
| On Dec 12, 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| > EXEEXT and OBJEXT don't need to know $CYGWIN etc.
|
| Ok, but I'd rather have the macros renamed to either _AC_HOST_???EXT
| or _AC_CC_???EXT (and only test with the C compiler).
I'm applying the patch as a starting point, these points
On Dec 12, 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> EXEEXT and OBJEXT don't need to know $CYGWIN etc.
Ok, but I'd rather have the macros renamed to either _AC_HOST_???EXT
or _AC_CC_???EXT (and only test with the C compiler).
But I'm also a bit unsure as to whether we should use _AC_LINK_I
On Dec 12, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If the cross-compiler bar running under Unix still produces non .exe
> by default, then we have to over ride its preference.
Please find one such cross-compiler before speculating on their
existence. All compilers I know of that genera
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 07:30:05PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
>
> Alexandre> Such a cross-compiler would be a broken compiler. I don't
> Alexandre> know of any such cross-compilers, so this point is moot.
>
> Ah!!! Then you are telling me we just don't care about __CYGWIN32__
> etc. Then tha
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Dec 12, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> What you describe is precisely what I meant by `build': there is
>> not a single reference to the host in what you describe.
Alexandre> Nope, the output of the
On Dec 12, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you describe is precisely what I meant by `build': there is not a
> single reference to the host in what you describe.
Nope, the output of the compiler follows conventions of the host
machine, so it's a characteristic of the host.
> "Peter" == Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Peter> Akim Demaille writes:
>> * host or build characteristic?
Peter> It's neither, nor should it matter. It's a feature of the
Peter> compiler. If there's an alternative Cygwin compiler that
Peter> generates .com files, then that'
On Dec 12, 2000, Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Akim Demaille writes:
>> * host or build characteristic?
> It's neither, nor should it matter. It's a feature of the compiler.
I wholeheartedly agree.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red
Akim Demaille writes:
> * host or build characteristic?
It's neither, nor should it matter. It's a feature of the compiler. If
there's an alternative Cygwin compiler that generates .com files, then
that's what EXEEXT is. If there's a regular Unix compiler that generates
a file 'foo.bazoo' whe
| On Dec 7, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >> "Morten" == Morten Eriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Morten> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>> OBJEXT and EXEEXT [...] define precisely what they are (build, or
| >>> host?), [...]
|
| Morten> Just wanted to a
Here are the most relevant messages I have from earlier threads.
--
* host or build characteristic?
** Earnie
OBJEXT is only a build feature while EXEEXT is both a build feature
and a host feature.
** Bernard answers
Even m
On Dec 7, 2000, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Morten" == Morten Eriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Morten> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> OBJEXT and EXEEXT [...] define precisely what they are (build, or
>>> host?), [...]
Morten> Just wanted to add my 0.02 Kro
> "Morten" == Morten Eriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Morten> Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> OBJEXT and EXEEXT [...] define precisely what they are (build, or
>> host?), [...]
Morten> Just wanted to add my 0.02 Kroner: after pondering this issue
Morten> for a while, I tend t
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OBJEXT and EXEEXT [...] define precisely what they are (build, or
> host?), [...]
Just wanted to add my 0.02 Kroner: after pondering this issue for a
while, I tend to believe we should first and foremost view them as
characteristics of the _compiler_ -
> "Mo" == Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mo> I have to admit that I am a bit confused about what is going on
Mo> with the _AC_CYGWIN and _AC_MINGW32 macros. I was under the
Mo> impression that they were required for _AC_EXEEXT or _AC_OBJEXT,
Mo> but it seems like the addition of these
I have to admit that I am a bit confused about
what is going on with the _AC_CYGWIN and
_AC_MINGW32 macros. I was under the
impression that they were required
for _AC_EXEEXT or _AC_OBJEXT, but
it seems like the addition of these
new patches will mean the obj and
exe extension will not need to depe
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 05:50:54PM +0100, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote:
: Perhaps in fact we can write the test as:
:
: for ac_file in `ls conftest conftest.exe conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
: case $ac_file in
: *.$ac_ext | *.o | *.obj | *.xcoff | *.tds) ;;
: conftest)
:
> -Original Message-
> From: Earnie Boyd [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 5:22 PM
> To: Akim Demaille
> Cc: Lars J. Aas; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; APatche
> Subject: Re: AC_OBJEXT again
>
>
> --- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTEC
Akim Demaille writes:
> there is one side effect to this change: configure no longer says
>
> checking for executable suffix... no
>
> it says
>
> checking for executable suffix...
Maybe you could put quotes around the result, otherwise it looks like
something is broken, IMHO.
--
Peter Eisentr
--- Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Earnie> HTH,
>
> It does, thanks. But then, you are referring to EXEEXT as a *build*
> feature, not a host feature.
>
> Frankly, I think we will never end having problems until we intro
I've applied what Lars suggested.
> "Earnie" == Earnie Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Earnie> HTH,
It does, thanks. But then, you are referring to EXEEXT as a *build*
feature, not a host feature.
Frankly, I think we will never end having problems until we introduce
the two sets. I can't see why EXEEXT and OBJEXT should
--- "Lars J. Aas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:15:32AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
> : +AC_LANG_CONFTEST([AC_LANG_PROGRAM()])
> : +if AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link); then
> : + for ac_file in `ls conftest conftest.exe conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
> : + case $
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 02:53:25PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: | This test will report `' on Cygwin caused by some Cygwin magic. Even though
: | the file is named `conftest.exe', doing `ls conftest' will return `conftest',
: | and doing `test -f conftest' will return true. Doing a plain `ls' w
| This test will report `' on Cygwin caused by some Cygwin magic. Even though
| the file is named `conftest.exe', doing `ls conftest' will return `conftest',
| and doing `test -f conftest' will return true. Doing a plain `ls' will not
| return that virtual file, though. You therefore need to "
On Thu, Nov 30, 2000 at 10:15:32AM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: +AC_LANG_CONFTEST([AC_LANG_PROGRAM()])
: +if AC_TRY_EVAL(ac_link); then
: + for ac_file in `ls conftest conftest.exe conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
: + case $ac_file in
: + *.$ac_ext | *.o | *.obj | *.xcoff | *.td
There is one real change: I chose to store the empty string as
ac_cv_exeext: I find this much simpler, less error prone etc. But
there is one side effect to this change: configure no longer says
checking for executable suffix... no
it says
checking for executable suffix...
I find this OK, an
| How about doing something along the same lines for exeext:
|
| for ac_file in `ls conftest.exe conftest conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
| case $ac_file in
| conftest )ac_cv_exeext=;;
| *.$ac_cv_object ... ) ;;
| *)ac_cv_exeext=`expr "$ac_file
| On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:59:57PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
| : Err, I think I should stop working on Autoconf right now:
| :
| : | for ac_file in `ls conftest.o conftest.obj conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
| : | case $ac_file in
| : | *.o | *.obj ) ac_cv_objext=`expr "$ac_fil
On Wed, Nov 29, 2000 at 07:59:57PM +0100, Akim Demaille wrote:
: Err, I think I should stop working on Autoconf right now:
:
: | for ac_file in `ls conftest.o conftest.obj conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
: | case $ac_file in
: | *.o | *.obj ) ac_cv_objext=`expr "$ac_file" : '.*\.\(.
Err, I think I should stop working on Autoconf right now:
| for ac_file in `ls conftest.o conftest.obj conftest.* 2>/dev/null`; do
| case $ac_file in
| *.o | *.obj ) ac_cv_objext=`expr "$ac_file" : '.*\.\(.*\)'`;;
I really wrote thisline to catch .o and .obj before any other
ex
34 matches
Mail list logo
