Tim Van Holder wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 23:20:26 +0200, Teun Burgers wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am maintaining the configure script for
> > gnugo (http://www.fsf.org/software/gnugo/)
> >
> > Under autoconf 2.13 when you had AC_EXEEXT
> > in you configure.in you could do under cygwin
> > a mingw32 b
Hello,
Sorry for the HTML, I'm bit surprised since Outlook is set (I just checked
it again !!) to send plain text
Yes I'm using AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM and I will get theses two files you
indicate me.
Thanks,
David.
- Original Message -
From: "Tim Van Holder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "
Tim Van Holder wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2001 23:20:26 +0200, Teun Burgers wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > I am maintaining the configure script for
> > gnugo (http://www.fsf.org/software/gnugo/)
> >
> > Under autoconf 2.13 when you had AC_EXEEXT
> > in you configure.in you could do under cygwin
> > a mingw32 b
Hello,
I hope outlook will let this real plain text ! ;-) Well, I'm trying to make
a configure.in file that support Canadian Cross compiling with the help of
the autobook 1.3.
First, I just would like to signal I was a bit surprised by this
AC_CANONICAL_SYSTEM macro that does crash when you prov
David Burg wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I hope outlook will let this real plain text ! ;-) Well, I'm trying to make
> a configure.in file that support Canadian Cross compiling with the help of
> the autobook 1.3.
Well, I actually doubt you really want to build Canadian Cross, but
to be trying to implem
> bash-2.04# CC=arm-linux-gcc
> ./configure --target=arm-linux --host=i686-pc-linux-gnu
>
> checking for c++... c++
>
> (No, no, no I don't want to test c++, I want to test arm-linux-gcc ! )
>
If you are looking for a C compiler, you use AC_PROG_CC, and
optionally override CC; if you want a C++
On May 30, 2001, "David Burg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> bash-2.04# CC=arm-linux-gcc ./configure --target=arm-linux
If you have a compiler for arm-linux, you want to specify
--host=arm-linux. host is the machine type on which the programs you
build are going to run. --target is only signific
On May 21, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but in order to keep backward compatibility, 2.50 should probably just
> stick to what 2.13 said.
> Pavel, Alexandre, what shall we do?
I've been trying for days to find something useful to say about this.
I'm afraid I couldn't come up
