On May 31, 2001, Esben Haabendal Soerensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So am I going to run into trouble when I move my stuff to HP-UX ?
Yep.
> Or can I avoid trouble by only using dynamic libraries ?
Static libraries, you mean? Yes, this would help.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', se
Alexandre Oliva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On May 30, 2001, Esben Haabendal Soerensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I am using libtool 1.3.3 for my C++ project using libtool and
> > libltdl. I seem to have it working. What are the reasons I should
> > need the ML-branch ?
>
> Because li
On May 30, 2001, Esben Haabendal Soerensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am using libtool 1.3.3 for my C++ project using libtool and
> libltdl. I seem to have it working. What are the reasons I should
> need the ML-branch ?
Because libtool works for C++ only on the few targets on which it use
Michael Matz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Is this a feasible scenario with the current version of libtool? Do I
> > have to take a look into the multi-language branch (didn't find any
> > docs, so far)?
>
> Yep, use the ML-branch.
I am using libtool 1.3.3 for my C++ project using libtool and
Hi,
On Wed, 16 May 2001, Lars von Wedel wrote:
>
> I'm planning to migrate a couple of our software projects to using
> autoconf/automake. Libtool support would be great, but I read about a
> bunch of issues related to C++. On the other hand, in the archives of
> the mailing list, there seem to b
On May 16, 2001, Lars von Wedel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do I have to take a look into the multi-language branch
To properly support C++, yes.
--
Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS
Hello,
I'm planning to migrate a couple of our software projects to using
autoconf/automake.
Libtool support would be great, but I read about a bunch of issues
related to C++.
On the other hand, in the archives of the mailing list, there seem to be
a number
of people actually using libtool togeth
