Hi Brooks, Alan,
On Aug 22, 2013, at 12:59 AM, Brooks Moses wrote:
> Ping?
>
> (And adding libtool@, in hopes of getting a little more attention, as pings
> on libtool-patches@ seem to be going nowhere.)
>
> On 06/05/2013 07:01 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
>> This adds support for little-endian powe
On 2013-08-22 09:40, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> Can we please get this simple patch pushed?
>
> Done.
To me, it appears as if what you actually pushed was not what was posted?
Cheers,
Peter
___
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
Hi Peter,
On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-08-22 09:40, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> Can we please get this simple patch pushed?
>>
>> Done.
>
> To me, it appears as if what you actually pushed was not what was posted?
I am an idiot. Thanks for the heads up, fixed in t
On 2013-08-22 10:20, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>
>> On 2013-08-22 09:40, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Can we please get this simple patch pushed?
>>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> To me, it appears as if what you actually pushed was not what was post
Hi Peter,
On Aug 22, 2013, at 8:58 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
> On 2013-08-22 10:20, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2013-08-22 09:40, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Can we please get this simple patch pushed?
Done.
>>>
>>> To me, it appears
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:34:10PM +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> > How can it be correct to say "-m elf32lppclinux" (32-bit) when $host is
> > explicitly 64-bit? That seems like utter garbage to me. What am I
> > missing this time?
As far as I understand, this piece of libtool is supplying ld op
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the fast feedback.
On Aug 22, 2013, at 10:48 PM, Alan Modra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 09:34:10PM +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
>>> How can it be correct to say "-m elf32lppclinux" (32-bit) when $host is
>>> explicitly 64-bit? That seems like utter garbage to me. What a
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:10:09AM +0700, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation, I finally do get it. Phew :)
Oh good, because I'm not sure I really understood it despite writing
an explanation. :)
> I believe I already fixed it with the most recent amendment committed
> under you
