Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

2011-09-09 Thread Bruno Haible
Peter Rosin wrote: > > When configure.ac does not contain then AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro, > > what do you do? Add it manually? ... > > In that case, as stated above, you can just use compile/ar-lib as you'd > use cccl, the macros only trigger the use of the scripts when they are > needed (and the inclu

Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

2011-09-09 Thread Bruno Haible
Peter Rosin wrote: > >> 'compile' makes cl understand the > >> -l and -L options (and a few others). > > > > So, if I understand it right, you *don't* want to assume that $CC > > understands -l and -L options, like the C compiler in POSIX does for > > ages (cf. > >

Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

2011-09-09 Thread Peter Rosin
Den 2011-09-09 19:00 skrev Bruno Haible: > Peter Rosin wrote: >>> When configure.ac does not contain then AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro, >>> what do you do? Add it manually? ... >> >> In that case, as stated above, you can just use compile/ar-lib as you'd >> use cccl, the macros only trigger the use of the

Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

2011-09-09 Thread Peter Rosin
Den 2011-09-09 19:27 skrev Bruno Haible: > But since not all packages use the AM_PROG_CC_C_O macro (only the use of > source files in directories without a Makefile.in requires it), I would > better recommend to everyone to use CC="/path/to/compile cl -nologo" > from the beginning. But don't forge

crypt not declared on more glibc versions

2011-09-09 Thread Reuben Thomas
The new note in crypt.texi specifically mentions glibc 2.11; I noticed the problem in 2.13. -- http://rrt.sc3d.org

Re: autoconf + automake support for MSVC

2011-09-09 Thread Bruno Haible
Peter Rosin wrote: > The platform name was discussed a few years back on the libtool lists (I > think somewhere in the gigantic thread "[patch #6448] [MSVC 7/7] Add MSVC > Support" from August 2008 approximately) [0], the outcome was that compiling > with cl for the MS C runtimes uses the same trip

Re: crypt not declared on more glibc versions

2011-09-09 Thread Bruno Haible
Reuben Thomas wrote: > The new note in crypt.texi specifically mentions glibc 2.11; I noticed > the problem in 2.13. Then it's worth changing the 3 documentation files. Care to send a patch? (I did not want to discourage you from sending patches, last time, when I committed a modified version of a