Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Albert Chin-A-Young
On Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 12:09:14AM +0100, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 05:26:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2000, Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > >> > > >> A pragmatic approach might be:

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Bob Friesenhahn
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > Sounds good to me. In order to not penalise IRIX developers, I guess > libtool should continue to discard -LANG:foo and friends, except on > IRIX. That would make it safe to add the following to your Makefile.am: > > libfoo_la_LIBADD = -LAN

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 05:26:39PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Aug 25, 2000, Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >> > >> A pragmatic approach might be: > >> > >> case $arg in > >> . > >> -LANG:*) continue ;; > >> -L*) > > >

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Aug 25, 2000, Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: >> >> A pragmatic approach might be: >> >> case $arg in >> . >> -LANG:*) continue ;; >> -L*) > Yep, although I've done the ANG: case in -L conditionalized on $host > beeing *-*-irix. No

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 25 Aug 2000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > > A pragmatic approach might be: > > case $arg in > . > -LANG:*) continue ;; > -L*) Yep, although I've done the ANG: case in -L conditionalized on $host beeing *-*-irix. Note also, that SGI's CC also recognizes -LIST: and -LNO:. They mu

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Alexandre Oliva
On Aug 25, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In principle this seems like a good idea... but is libtool ever going > to have to deal with `libANG:whatever.la'?? Or ANG:foo/bar? Well, since this can't be used portably, there's not much point in our trying to support it on any

Re: CVS libtool incompatability with IRIX compiler

2000-08-25 Thread Gary V. Vaughan
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 12:49:29AM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Aug 24, 2000, Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> If libtool understood -LANG:std, one less thing for the authors to > >> deal with. > > > Yep, I also like this solution most, even if this means a very special > > c

Re: ML-Branch and static constructors

2000-08-25 Thread Michael Matz
Hi, On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > has anyone managed to get static constructors working using the libtool > ml-branch and automake (1.4) and would be able to give me some hints? I > am woking on linux, with gcc2.95.2. We use the ML-branch for KDE, and our libs use static objects

ML-Branch and static constructors

2000-08-25 Thread jan . gentsch
Hi, has anyone managed to get static constructors working using the libtool ml-branch and automake (1.4) and would be able to give me some hints? I am woking on linux, with gcc2.95.2. Thanks, Jan -- ·´¯`·.¸¸..><º>.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸><º>¸.·´¯`·.¸.,..·´¯`·.. ><º>`·.¸¸.·´

RE: Tables of function pointers

2000-08-25 Thread Bernard Dautrevaux
> -Original Message- > From: Scott C. Gray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 11:52 PM > To: Bernard Dautrevaux > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Tables of function pointers > > > On Thu, 24 Aug 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux wrote: > > > Probably the simplest (