RE: Problem with ltdl.h

> -Original Message- > From: Kevin Atkinson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:01 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Problem with ltdl.h > > > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000, Kevin Atkinson wrote: > > > > > I just updated to the latest CVS version of libtool an

libtool´Ô ¾È³çÇϼ¼¿ä?

Title: ¢Ä ¿À´ÃÀÇ À¯¸Ó ÇѸ¶µð ¢Å   "Dad, I don't want to go to school today.," said the boy.  "Why not, son?"  "Well, one of the chickens on the school farm died last week and    we had chicken soup for lunch the next day. And three days ago    one of the pigs died and we had roast p

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > in C++ > struct lt_dlhandle > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle; However, IIRC, it is valid to have the implicit name overridden by another definition of the

Re: Conflict between autoconf and libtool way of handling libraries (try 2)

On Nov 28, 2000, Carlo Wood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What is the right way of doing this? Or is indeed > something that is actually a problem with libtool? I'm afraid there's no right way to do it. My plan is to arrange for AC_PROG_LIBTOOL to change the way autoconf tests for libraries and

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > in C++ > > struct lt_dlhandle > > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit > > typedef struct lt_dlhandle lt_dlhandle; > > However, IIRC, it is valid to have the i

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > in C++ >> >struct lt_dlhandle >> > automatically define a TYPENAME i.e. makes an implicit >> >typedef struct lt_dl

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It does NOT appear > > to be valid C++ code > > I've just managed to compile: > > typedef struct foo foo; Yes that will compile but typedef struct foo * foo Won't, which is what the lin

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 08:53:00PM -0200, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > >> On Nov 28, 2000, Bernard Dautrevaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > in C++ > >> > struct lt_dlhandle > >> > auto

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > or something? I prefer `something' :-) How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? -- Alexandre Oliva Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unica

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On 29 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord > > or something? > > I prefer `something' :-) > > How about `typedef struct lt_dlhandle_struct lt_dlhandle'? I wil

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Nov 29, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 29 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2000, "Gary V. Vaughan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > How about we simply change the name of the struct to lt_handlerecord >> > or something? >> >> I prefer `something' :-) >>

Re: Problem with ltdl.h

On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 28 Nov 2000, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Nov 28, 2000, Kevin Atkinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > It does NOT appear >> > to be valid C++ code >> >> I've just managed to compile: >> >> typedef struct foo foo; > Yes that will