Ralf Wildenhues <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ Paul, the rest of this thread will be readable soon at
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-11/msg2.html
> We'd be interested in your opinion on this matter -- thanks. ]
My understanding is that even with the patch, you'll st
On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Kean,
>
> * Kean Johnston wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:34:00AM CET:
[snip]
> > > nm -B /dev/null
> > >on SCO output, by the way? Maybe we can adjust the old scheme to that?
> > A usage message becuase it doesn't support -B, but it does
> > sup
nm_to_check="${ac_tool_prefix}nm"
[ -n "$ac_tool_prefix"] && nm_to_check="$nm_to_check nm"
Space missing before ]: ^
Right :) I was just typing blind to make sure you were OK with
the concept.
Wrong. The original code looked *only* at the first line.
The problem with looking at all lines
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 04:52:30PM CEST:
> * Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 09:19:06AM CEST:
> > * Albert Chin wrote on Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 11:21:50PM CEST:
> > >
> > > If libtool sees -xarch=v9, it should add -64 to the linker
> > > command-line.
> >
> > Y
Index: THANKS
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/libtool/libtool/THANKS,v
retrieving revision 1.47
diff -u -r1.47 THANKS
--- THANKS 3 Jul 2005 16:55:48 - 1.47
+++ THANKS 1 Nov 2005 15:54:51 -
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
to Libtool
* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 05:25:10AM CET:
> * Kean Johnston wrote on Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 06:14:27PM CET:
>
> Let's just go a different, simpler route:
> wl=$lt_prog_compiler_wl eval LDFLAGS=\"\$LDFLAGS $lt_prog_compiler_static\"
>
> Similarly to a few lines above the offend
As always, I hope I did not forget anybody.
Applied to HEAD and branch-1-5.
Cheers,
Ralf
* THANKS: Updated.
Index: ChangeLog
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/libtool/libtool/ChangeLog,v
retrieving revision 1.2151
diff -u -r1.2151 Chan
Oops, forgot the manual bit of my patch process to tie arch changesets
back to quilt diff files: see corrected subject line.
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
Index: Changelog
from Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4 (LTDL_INIT): Call _LT_ENABLE_INSTALL directly
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Ho Gary,
Ho Ralf (what language are we greeting each other in now btw?),
Okay to commit?
Yes, please, after addressing these two nits:
- accommodate for Makefile.inc changes (AM_CPPFLAGS and AM_LDFLAGS)
Have I missed an instance? I thought that was all taken care
I can try the patch on HP-UX and Tru64.
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary, Tom, Paul,
[ Paul, the rest of this thread will be readable soon at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-11/msg2.html
We'd be interested in your opinion on this matter -- thanks. ]
* Gary V. Vaughan w
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for your patience. I'm afraid that we are not yet understanding
each other... please bear with me:
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:02:17PM CET:
Ralf, I know you have reservations about this one, but I don't really
under
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Applied to HEAD.
* looking for [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-347 to compare with
* comparing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-347
M libltdl/m4/ltdl.m4
M ChangeLog
* modified files
Index: Changelog
from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Applied to HEAD.
* looking for [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-346 to compare with
* comparing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-346
M libtoolize.m4sh
M tests/libtoolize.at
M ChangeLog
* modified files
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Applied to HEAD.
* looking for [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-345 to compare with
* comparing to [EMAIL PROTECTED]/libtool--devo--1.0--patch-345
M libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4
M libltdl/m4/ltsugar.m4
M libltdl/m4/ltversion.in
M
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf,
Thanks for the quick review!
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:00:00PM CET:
Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 for ease of review :-)
Okay to commit?
It'd be nice if you addressed my question at the end of
http://lists.gnu.
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:02:17PM CET:
>
> Ralf, I know you have reservations about this one, but I don't really
> understand them. Can you explain what it is you worry will go wrong
> if this is applied?
Surely. libtoolize has just grown to include a lot of t
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 01:00:00PM CET:
> Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 for ease of review :-)
> Okay to commit?
It'd be nice if you addressed my question at the end of
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-10/msg00209.html
Otherwise, yes
Hi Gary, Tom, Paul,
[ Paul, the rest of this thread will be readable soon at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libtool-patches/2005-11/msg2.html
We'd be interested in your opinion on this matter -- thanks. ]
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:39:06PM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wro
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 12:57:57PM CET:
> Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 parts for easy review :-)
> Okay to commit?
Yes. Fire away! :)
Cheers,
Ralf
> Index: libtool--devo--1.0/ChangeLog
> from Gary V. Vaughan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * libltdl/m4/
Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 parts for easy review :-)
Okay to commit?
Cheers,
Gary.
libltdl/m4/argz.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltsugar.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltversion.in |2 +-
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Inde
Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 for ease of review :-)
Okay to commit?
Ralf, I know you have reservations about this one, but I don't really
understand them. Can you explain what it is you worry will go wrong
if this is applied? Regardless of whether we apply this patch, I
think it is impo
Redone against HEAD, and split into 3 for ease of review :-)
Okay to commit?
Cheers,
Gary.
libtoolize.m4sh | 22 +++--
tests/libtoolize.at | 125 +++-
2 files changed, 142 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
Index: libtool--devo--1.0/
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
I'm not sure whether I need to ask for approval for this patch..
Anyway, I'll apply this to branch-1-5 and HEAD unless someone disagrees.
Without it, IBM compilers barf over this in picky mode. I believe it
even be necessary as per C standard.
POSIX allows for function
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
Hallo Ralf!
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:09:09AM CET:
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
[...] also add the THANKS entry which will
remove Gary from the second place in the list. :->
Feh! Well, if that's how you feel: I QUIT! :'(
No, that's
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> [...] also add the THANKS entry which will
remove Gary from the second place in the list. :->
Feh! Well, if that's how you feel: I QUIT! :'(
--
Gary V. Vaughan ())_. [EMAIL PROTECTED],gnu.org}
Research Scientist ( '/ http://tkd.kicks-ass.net
GNU Hacker
Hallo Ralf!
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
OK to apply to branch-1-5 and forward-port (HEAD has only the STRIP_LIB
part missing, I believe)?
Yes, please commit. Thanks for this... there is still much bogosity along
these lines where I never did quite seem to get around to addressing this
comment afte
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Oct 31, 2005 at 05:11:01PM CET:
libltdl/m4/argz.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltoptions.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltsugar.m4 |2 +-
libltdl/m4/ltversion.in |2 +-
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Index: libto
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:09:09AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > [...] also add the THANKS entry which will
> >remove Gary from the second place in the list. :->
>
> Feh! Well, if that's how you feel: I QUIT! :'(
No, that's not how I feel! It's what order
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hi Kean,
* Kean Johnston wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:06:35AM CET:
instead. Bug in dlopen/dlerror?
Yes I suspect it must be. I guess in a sense it shows how obscure
the case of testing for being able todlopen yourself if you are
linked statically is :) So perhaps
Hi Gary,
* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 11:17:38AM CET:
> Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >* Kean Johnston wrote on Tue, Nov 01, 2005 at 08:06:35AM CET:
> >
> >>>instead. Bug in dlopen/dlerror?
> >>
> >>Yes I suspect it must be. I guess in a sense it shows how obscure
> >>the case of te
30 matches
Mail list logo
