Eric Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I know it is not portable to do "trap '' TERM", since ash only accepts
> signal numbers. But is it portable to do 'kill -TERM', or must I do
> 'kill -15'? The manual doesn't currently mention any pitfalls of kill.
Unix version 7 didn't support 'kill -TER
Hi guys,
Hope this is the right place for this.
I configured a set of programs to compile using autoconf and automake. Everything
worked fine. Then I changed the programs from .cpp to .c filetype. I used this
file to rebuild the source tree:
rm -f config.cache
rm -rf autom4te.cache
rm
William Estrada <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have run into this problem before but don't remember how I fixed it in the
> past.
> I can't find any place in the source tree that references 'marker.cpp'. But
> for
> some reason it is remembering 'marker.cpp'.
Remove the dependency file in the
On Mon, 2006-07-17 at 14:41 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Patrick Welche <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > so the -R made it, and all is well :-)
> >
> > I can't check the opposite though: do systems that don't want rpath get
> > one now?
>
> Yes, they probably do. Perhaps the libtool guys can chi
Howdy all!
I use autoconf to build my library.
When attempting to do a mingw cross-compile, the configure script
checks for a whole bunch of extra compilers. What's up with that?
If I do this:
bash-3.1$ ./configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin
--disable-f90 CC="gcc -mno-cygwin"
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 08:44 -0600, Ed Hartnett wrote:
> Howdy all!
>
> I use autoconf to build my library.
>
> When attempting to do a mingw cross-compile, the configure script
> checks for a whole bunch of extra compilers. What's up with that?
>
> If I do this:
>
> bash-3.1$ ./configure --host
Ed Hartnett wrote:
> When attempting to do a mingw cross-compile, the configure script
> checks for a whole bunch of extra compilers. What's up with that?
>
> If I do this:
>
> bash-3.1$ ./configure --host=i686-pc-mingw32 --build=i686-pc-cygwin
> --disable-f90 CC="gcc -mno-cygwin"
Why would you do
"Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
worked.
> I tried just
> now on Mac OS X to see the result: powerpc-apple-darwin8-gcc-4.0.1:
> unrecognized option '-R/usr/X1
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 08:55 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
>
> It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
> worked.
>
> > I tried just
> > now on Mac OS X to see the r
"Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> see http://pogma.com/misc/autoscrewup.txt for the transcript.
Thanks for checking this. Please bear with me, as I can't easily
test this directly. How about the following further patch, which
I just now installed?
2006-07-20 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:39 -0700, Paul Eggert wrote:
> "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > see http://pogma.com/misc/autoscrewup.txt for the transcript.
>
> Thanks for checking this. Please bear with me, as I can't easily
> test this directly. How about the following further pat
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter O'Gorman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> This patch will now add -R to X_LIBS for all systems.
> It's not supposed to. It's supposed to try -R, and add it only if it
> worked.
Adding -R for system X libraries is always the wrong thing to do on De
12 matches
Mail list logo
