Hello
Using : ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 1.3.5 (1.385.2.206 2000/05/27
11:12:27)
Makefile.am : lib_la_LIBADD = /usr/local/lib/lib2.a ./lib.o ...
I would like to make a lib.so library with an other static lib2.a library
but I have
*** Warning: inter-library dependencies are not known to be
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> I'd like to add (at some point) a macro that detects the path
Tim> separator used on the _build_ system.
It's fine with me. I'd check a patch implementing it into automake.
I don't know the answer to your problems though.
Tom
> "Akim" == Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Akim> The patch below gives this on the very CVS Automake package:
Akim> * m4/depend.m4 (AM_DEPENDENCIES): Don't leave `AC_PROG_CC' etc. in
Akim> clear.
Akim> * m4/init.m4: Likewise.
Akim> * m4/sanity.m4: s/conftestfile/conftest.f
> "Tim" == Tim Van Holder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tim> However, Emacs Lisp also has 'defadvice' which allows you to
Tim> attach arbitrary code to an existing function in different
Tim> ways. I must admit that whole advice thing strikes me as a little
Tim> insane; it's probably quite power
The following message is a courtesy copy of an article
that has been posted to gnu.utils.bug as well.
The Autoconf team is extremely proud (and quite relieved) to announce
the birth of Autoconf 2.49c, our release candidate. The core Autoconf
is not expected to change before the release, while t
> Morten> Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
>
> Not exactly: AFAIK, you can't freely hook whatever function: you hook
> on existing hooks. Right?
Yes the 'hook' concept in Emacs Lisp requires a function to explicitly
run those hooks, i.e. hooks are only available if the person writing
a routine ma
> "Morten" == Morten Eriksen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Morten> Akim,
>> In fact, I am still against generic hooks because that's a bad
>> thing to do. Nobody where ever imagine doing this in another
>> programming language. [...]
Morten> Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
Not exactly: AFAIK
Akim,
> In fact, I am still against generic hooks because that's a bad thing
> to do. Nobody where ever imagine doing this in another programming
> language. [...]
Emacs Lisp comes to mind.. ;-)
Regards,
Morten
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Worst case, we can break AC_DEFUNed macros into two macros,
Alexandre> one with the actual name, that contains the prologue and
Alexandre> the epilogue and, between them, an invocation of another
Alexandre> macro, contain
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> In which case, we might attempt to match pro/epi in the
Alexandre> defn and insert the hooks before/after the actual DEFUN,
Alexandre> i.e., between pro and epi.
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Only if the macro is AC_DEFUNed.
Well, since we're referring to AC_REQUIRE'd macros etc., they are :)
Or where you talking about the cost? Then, yes, agreed, only for
AC_DEFUN'd macros.
~/src/ace % ace -i -t m4_defi
The patch below gives this on the very CVS Automake package:
% diff Makefile.in Makefile.in.old
63a64,67
> CC = @CC@
> CPP = @CPP@
> CXX = @CXX@
> CXXCPP = @CXXCPP@
Index: ChangeLog
from Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* m4/depend.m4 (AM_DEPENDENCIES): Don't leave `AC_PROG_CC' etc.
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So to run a hook you need to insert something *inside* the pro/epi
> pair.
Only if the macro is AC_DEFUNed. In which case, we might attempt to
match pro/epi in the defn and insert the hooks before/after the actual
DEFUN, i.e., between
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
Alexandre> I think it's ok. But I agree the code is messy. We need
Alexandre> AC_HOOK(
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> I think it's ok. But I agree the code is messy. We need
Alexandre> AC_HOOK(MACRO, BEFORE, AFTER) in autoconf.
> Wow! This sounds real hard, or at least, reall
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> I think it's ok. But I agree the code is messy. We need
Alexandre> AC_HOOK(MACRO, BEFORE, AFTER) in autoconf.
Wow! This sounds real hard, or at least, really expansive if we do
for all the macros. I was thinking of h
Ganesan Rajagopal wrote:
> ...
> You normally *have* to package only installed binaries, especially
> with libtool libraries.
Don't get me started about libtool... :)
Actually, now that libtool has pretty much stablized you can just
reference the files under the .libs directory, although I've be
On Jan 24, 2001, Akim Demaille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Meanwhile, can't we just hide the uses of AC_PROG_CC and
Alexandre> _CXX from automake by adding ][ in the middle of their
Alexandre> names?
> Right, but the cod
>>> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> On Jan 23, 2001, Alexandre Duret-Lutz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> INSTALL_STRIP_PROGRAM=$$(topsrc_dir)/$(install_sh) -s
>> and then
>> install-strip:
>> $(MAKE) INSTALL_PROGRAM='$(INSTALL_STRIP_PROGRAM)' install
> "Alexandre" == Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexandre> Meanwhile, can't we just hide the uses of AC_PROG_CC and
Alexandre> _CXX from automake by adding ][ in the middle of their
Alexandre> names?
Right, but the code is already so hairy that I wondered whether I
wanted to add
> "Pavel" == Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Pavel> Hello! Trying to catch up with the mailing lists :-)
Pavel> I'm surprised that this patch has not been applied since
Pavel> October. I believe it's very valuable. I even considered doing
Pavel> it myself.
We ended stuck with a po
21 matches
Mail list logo
