Mo DeJong writes:
> How about merging them into a more generic AC_PROG_COMPILER_G macro
> that could test any compiler for the -g flag?
That would be nice because then we can undefine it so that AC_PROG_CC et
al don't run it. (or any other semi-stable interface to avoid automatic -g
in CFLAGS ..
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Mo DeJong writes:
>
> > How about merging them into a more generic AC_PROG_COMPILER_G macro
> > that could test any compiler for the -g flag?
>
> That would be nice because then we can undefine it so that AC_PROG_CC et
> al don't run it. (or any ot
With all my respect,
This is new for me and I wouldn't like to disturb anybody.
Since some months ago I'm looking for work and it's beeing dificult
to find a good place and position. I have experience in communications,
hardware & software, protocols, security, programming, cryptogaphy
an
On Jun 17, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That does not seem like a very good idea. The default should be
> -g -02 so that a binary will run with some optimizations and
> still be debugable in case of a crash.
Agreed.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp
On Jun 16, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like that wc -c a lot better, we can just do this. Of course
> this depends on the output format of wc, is it going to
> be the same everywhere?
I'm not even sure `wc -c' will be available everywhere :-(
I still think using cmp is the bes
On 17 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 16, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I like that wc -c a lot better, we can just do this. Of course
> > this depends on the output format of wc, is it going to
> > be the same everywhere?
>
> I'm not even sure `wc -c' will be avail
On Jun 18, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, how about this patch? It uses cmp instead of wc.
Nope, you must use `tail +16' to skip the initial header of the object
file. As I wrote before, some object file formats store timestamps in
the first few bytes.
--
Alexandre Oliva E
On Jun 18, 2000, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Ok, how about this patch? It uses cmp instead of wc.
> Nope, you must use `tail +16'
+16c, I mean. Just like GCC's compare.
But it occurs to me that `tail +16c' may not be su
On 18 Jun 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote:
> On Jun 18, 2000, Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 18, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Ok, how about this patch? It uses cmp instead of wc.
>
> > Nope, you must use `tail +16'
>
> +16c, I mean. Just like GCC's comp
On Jun 18, 2000, Mo DeJong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Some folks have suggested compiling and running a C program
> to figure out the length of the file, but that would not
> help if I wanted to do a cross compile.
This might work:
awk '{len+=length()+1;} END {print len;}' < filename
--
Ale
Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| There are several macros in Autoconf that are checking whether a
| function exists and works and set HAVE_FUN accordingly. This is the
| strategy I adopted when I stole AC_FUNC_GETGROUPS from Jim, although
| his original macro was defining HAVE_WORKING
11 matches
Mail list logo
