Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-04-05 Thread Roberto Bagnara
Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: > Found the bug: > > > linux*) > > > case $cc_basename in > > > icc|ecc) > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_wl, $1)='-Wl,' > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_pic, $1)='-KPIC' > > > _LT_AC_TAGVAR(lt_prog_compiler_static, $1)='-static' > > > ;; > M

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-26 Thread Allan Sandfeld Jensen
> icc users: > > Aparently support for icc isn't complete. Here is where > you can help by submitting a patch that fixes the problems > you're running into. I don't have access to this compiler, > so if it is something you want, you'll have to volunteer to > do it. Please read http://www.gnu.org

RE: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-25 Thread Himanshu_Khurana
rds Himanshu Khurana -Original Message- From: Robert Boehne [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 8:10 PM To: Himanshu_Khurana Cc: Roberto Bagnara; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler icc users: Aparently support for icc isn't complete. Here

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-25 Thread Robert Boehne
e command is failing due to > inability of icc to pass -soname option to linker. > > WHICH MEANS that the abovementioned piece of code-patch in libtool.m4 is not being > accessed. > > MY QUESTION IS WHY? IS IT A PROBLEM WITH THW WAY I AM DOING THINGS ??? > LOOKING FOR HELP &

RE: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-25 Thread Himanshu_Khurana
ssage----- From: Roberto Bagnara [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Himanshu_Khurana Subject: Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler Robert Boehne wrote: > You can always get the latest CVS version of GNU Libtool at:

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-24 Thread Roberto Bagnara
Robert Boehne wrote: > You can always get the latest CVS version of GNU Libtool at: > ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/cvs/libtool.tgz > > It does contain support for icc. No, support for icc is broken, the problem has been reported to no avail, and the email address of the person who did the icc port b

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler---NEW PROBLEM

2003-03-21 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 11:42, Himanshu_Khurana wrote: > 1:Downloaded libtool.tgz file from the place(CVS repository) mentioned by Robert > 2:Downloaded autoconf2.7.tar.gz and automake1.7.tar.gz from ftp.gnu.org I assume you mean autoconf 2.57, not 2.7 (which would be a really ancient version). > >

RE: libtool support for intel icc compiler---NEW PROBLEM

2003-03-21 Thread Himanshu_Khurana
le tool . I really SUCK Please help me Anxiously awaiting replies -Original Message- From: Tim Van Holder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 12:57 PM To: Himanshu_Khurana Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: libtool support for intel icc comp

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler---NEW PROBLEM

2003-03-20 Thread Tim Van Holder
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 07:02, Himanshu_Khurana wrote: > But again back to libtool when I say > autoconf configure.ac > > it does a lot of things only to exit with error saying > > configure.ac:115: error: possibly undefined macro: LT_AC_PROG_GCJ > If this token and others are legitimate,

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler---NEW PROBLEM

2003-03-20 Thread Himanshu_Khurana
Thanks for your reply Robert. I have downloaded the libtool version u told I did the following tar xvzf libtool.tgz -C /home/himanshu/usr/local cd /home/himanshu/usr/local/libtool Here when I said aclocal it went fine but saying autoconf configure.ac wanted me to install autoconf version more

Re: libtool support for intel icc compiler

2003-03-20 Thread Robert Boehne
Himanshu: You can always get the latest CVS version of GNU Libtool at: ftp://alpha.gnu.org/pub/gnu/cvs/libtool.tgz It does contain support for icc. HTH, Robert Himanshu_Khurana wrote: > > Hi > I am sorry if i am repeating an already discussed issue. I have gone through the > previous mails o