On Nov 18, 2004, at 3:49 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I did [at least] one questionable thing: in the Linux linker
section, I had to check for pgf77 or pgf90, because, contrary to the
PG
documentation, pgf77 and pgf90 need an additional "-fpic" in their
linker command to create a shared library prop
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 06:30:27PM CET:
> Actually, before I attempt the LT 2.x patch, how does this look for the
> 1.5 patch? I checked pgcc, pgCC, pgf77, and pgf90, both in the 1.5
> test suite (I assuming that configuring LT with CC=pgcc [etc.] and then
> "make check" is
Actually, before I attempt the LT 2.x patch, how does this look for the
1.5 patch? I checked pgcc, pgCC, pgf77, and pgf90, both in the 1.5
test suite (I assuming that configuring LT with CC=pgcc [etc.] and then
"make check" is what is necessary?) and with a small sample automake
package that I
On Nov 17, 2004, at 9:38 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Some of the consumers of our software use the Portland Group compilers
(http://www.pgroup.com/). Libtool 1.5.x doesn't seem to recognize
these compilers, and therefore doesn't always do the Right Things.
Libtool doesn't know about Portland's comp
Hi Jeff,
* Jeff Squyres wrote on Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 03:00:22PM CET:
>
> Some of the consumers of our software use the Portland Group compilers
> (http://www.pgroup.com/). Libtool 1.5.x doesn't seem to recognize
> these compilers, and therefore doesn't always do the Right Things.
Libtool doe
