Hello,
* Bruno Haible wrote on Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 02:06:55AM CEST:
> > +uninstall-hook: uninstall-relocwrapper
> > +uninstall-relocwrapper:
> > +if RELOCATABLE_VIA_LD
> > + @:
> > +else
> > + if test $(RELOCATABLE) = yes; then \
> > + case '$(EXEEXT)' in \
> > + .bin*) ;; \
>
Hi Ben,
> +uninstall-hook: uninstall-relocwrapper
> +uninstall-relocwrapper:
> +if RELOCATABLE_VIA_LD
> + @:
> +else
> + if test $(RELOCATABLE) = yes; then \
> + case '$(EXEEXT)' in \
> + .bin*) ;; \
> + *) $(MAKE) uninstall EXEEXT=.bin$(EXEEXT) ;; \
> +
Hi Ben,
> The problem is that AC_FUNC_STRTOD assumes that strtod does not
> exist when cross-compiling, which in turn makes the strtod module
> assume that it does not need to handle an existing declaration.
Ah, so AC_FUNC_STRTOD makes gnulib think that strtod() does not exist,
although in fact i
Ralf Wildenhues writes:
> * Ben Pfaff wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:06:53AM CEST:
>> +if RELOCATABLE_VIA_LD
>> +@:
>> +else
>> +if test $(RELOCATABLE) = yes; then \
>> +case '$(EXEEXT)' in \
>> +.bin*) ;; \
>> +*) $(MAKE) uninstall EXEEXT=.bin$(EXEEXT) ;
Bruno Haible writes:
>> As you can see, this defines an inline version of strtod() that
>> conflicts with the out-of-line version in lib/strtod.c.
>>
>> Is there an idiomatic solution for this kind of problem?
>
> Why does it conflict? gnulib's replacement already contains the
> idiomatic solut
Hi Thi,
> To me, somewhat interesting is a count of the specified modules
> (i.e., aggregate information that i am not directly aware of),
> and really interesting is the full list of "support modules"
> (non-specified dependencies). The latter because it gives me
> an idea of the project's "util
