On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:46:22AM -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > H.J. Lu wrote:
> > >On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >>>It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
> > >>>in gcc and
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 10:32:18AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> H.J. Lu wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
> >>>in gcc and src?
> >>No, please test their bugfix and see if it works for you (
H.J. Lu wrote:
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
in gcc and src?
No, please test their bugfix and see if it works for you (just trying to
minimize the chance that it breaks next time we update).
I ha
H.J. Lu wrote:
I don't get it. Shouldn't libtool in gcc require lt~obsolete.m4 so
that it won't be missing in the first place? To me, a missing
lt~obsolete.m4 is a bug in libtool.
As part of Steve Ellcey's toplevel libtool update, he removed a number
of lt-* files that were obsolete, and expl
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 12:37:32AM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 22:09 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >
> > > >It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
> > > >in gcc and src?
> > >
> > > N
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 22:09 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > >It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
> > >in gcc and src?
> >
> > No, please test their bugfix and see if it works for you (just trying to
> > m
On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 06:59:52AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> >It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
> >in gcc and src?
>
> No, please test their bugfix and see if it works for you (just trying to
> minimize the chance that it breaks next time we update).
I have
It is fixed in th next libtool. Should I check in my work around
in gcc and src?
No, please test their bugfix and see if it works for you (just trying to
minimize the chance that it breaks next time we update).
Paolo
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:00:03AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >I don't know much about m4, autoconf nor libtool. This patch works
> >for me on both gcc and binutils.
>
> Looks good, but let's make sure it is applied to upstream libtool as well.
>
> Paolo
>
> >2007-06-30 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROT
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 11:43:09PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> "H.J. Lu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 07:26:52PM +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> >> Please make sure that you have the right version of libtool installed
> >> before running aclocal.
>
> > For reason, a
* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 10:50:25PM CEST:
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> >Maybe we should just force everybody to have lt~obsolete.m4. To me,
> >that seems to be the simplest way to avoid any hassles here. There have
> >been at least three different scen
On Sun, 1 Jul 2007, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
Hello world,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:08:12PM CEST:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:47 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:36:13PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Does gcc have lt~obsolete.m4 anywhere? Its function is to
Hello world,
* Peter O'Gorman wrote on Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:08:12PM CEST:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:47 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:36:13PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > >
> > > Does gcc have lt~obsolete.m4 anywhere? Its function is to ensure that
> > > aclocal does
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:47 -0700, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:36:13PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:00 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > > I don't know much about m4, autoconf nor libtool. This patch works
> > > > for me on both gcc and binutils.
> > >
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:36:13PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:00 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > > I don't know much about m4, autoconf nor libtool. This patch works
> > > for me on both gcc and binutils.
> >
> > Looks good, but let's make sure it is applied to upstrea
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 10:00 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I don't know much about m4, autoconf nor libtool. This patch works
> > for me on both gcc and binutils.
>
> Looks good, but let's make sure it is applied to upstream libtool as well.
>
Does gcc have lt~obsolete.m4 anywhere? Its function
I don't know much about m4, autoconf nor libtool. This patch works
for me on both gcc and binutils.
Looks good, but let's make sure it is applied to upstream libtool as well.
Paolo
2007-06-30 H.J. Lu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libtool.m4 (_LT_CC_BASENAME): Use AC_DEFUN instead of
17 matches
Mail list logo
