Re: problem when cross compiling with mingw32ce

Hello Vincent, * Vincent Torri wrote on Tue, Oct 07, 2008 at 05:30:24PM CEST: > libtool call: > > /bin/sh ../../libtool --tag=CC --mode=link arm-mingw32ce-gcc -g -O2 > -Wl,--enable-auto-import -L/home/torri/local/wince/lib > -L/home/torri/local/opt/cegcc/lib -o suite.exe suite.o test_memcpy

Re: problem when cross compiling with mingw32ce

I've pushed three patches for cegcc now. This should flush all patches pending from this mail thread. Cheers, Ralf commit 2a06feab95ec4c0e10f265dfb40aff381489d8f3 Author: Vincent Torri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sun Nov 23 20:30:33 2008 +0100 Fix func_emit_cwrapperexe_src for WinCE: no err

Re: just how much autotools got faster, or: just forget about dolt

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 06:20:04PM CET: > > I suspect that the 5% which Bob once rashly decreed as goal may be > achieved by increasing the compilation optimization level. Well, Bob is the guy looking at you in the mirror each morning, and those 5% are achieved w

Re: just how much autotools got faster, or: just forget about dolt

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: What does this mean? Going from (1) to (2) gives 22% saving in absolute build time. Meanwhile, the build system overhead (time not spent inside gcc, ar, ld) went from 38% of the total build time down to 17%. That's not yet the 5% which Bob once decr

Re: mingw win64 comatibility

On 11/23/08, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No. The 1.5 branch is dead, and I don't recall anyone that desired > turning it undead. > > If there is anything that 1.5.x gave you that you don't get from 2.2.x, > then time to complain is *now* (well, *was* a long time ago, but anyway

just how much autotools got faster, or: just forget about dolt

For all dolt junkies, and whoever claims autotools and esp. libtool are performance hogs: yes, they are still not the fastest thing in the world. But we are getting better: As an example, I built the ompi/ subdirectory of OpenMPI on a two-way GNU/Linux system using bash, with 1) Autoconf 2.61, Au

Re: mingw win64 comatibility

* Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 03:42:45PM CET: > On 11/23/08, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Committed like this. > Thanks! > Will you backport this to 1.5 branch? No. The 1.5 branch is dead, and I don't recall anyone that desired turning it undead. If there is

Re: mingw win64 comatibility

On 11/23/08, Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Committed like this. > > Cheers, and thanks, > Ralf Thanks! Will you backport this to 1.5 branch? Alon. ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: mingw win64 comatibility

On Sun, 23 Nov 2008, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:45:23AM CET: --- a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh +++ b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh @@ -2156,7 +2156,7 @@ func_win32_libid () ;; *ar\ archive*) # could be an import, or static if eval $OBJDUMP

Re: mingw win64 comatibility

* Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 10:45:23AM CET: > --- a/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh > +++ b/libltdl/config/ltmain.m4sh > @@ -2156,7 +2156,7 @@ func_win32_libid () > ;; >*ar\ archive*) # could be an import, or static > if eval $OBJDUMP -f $1 | $SED -e '10q' 2>/dev/null | >

Re: DLL howto

Hello Matěj, * Matěj Týč wrote on Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 02:41:36PM CET: > I am seeking a howto regarding making DLLs for Windows. [...] > Maybe I am missing something, but I think it should be reflected more in > the libtool manual. I would like to improve that if I understand the > problem. Yes.