Hello,
* Ollie Wild wrote on Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 02:46:46AM CET:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > I'm pushing the patch with the diff below squashed in, hope you
> > don't mind.
>
> Ralf, being as you're a dual libtool / GCC maintainer, what is the
> process for
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> I'm pushing the patch with the diff below squashed in, hope you
> don't mind.
Ralf, being as you're a dual libtool / GCC maintainer, what is the
process for getting libtool changes pushed to GCC? Do I just wait for
a new libtool release
On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> Thanks. The patch looks good to me, with only trivial nits:
> the testsuite addition should be sorted under the 'libtool script
> generation' banner rather than with the sysroot tests, and I don't
> think that it is necessary to skip the
Hi Ollie,
* Ollie Wild wrote on Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 05:09:44AM CET:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> >
> > This patch looks ok but it uses $pkg and $p which are not in Libtool's
> > name space, and it lacks updates to NEWS, libtool.texi, and the test
> > suite. Oh yes,
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> This patch looks ok but it uses $pkg and $p which are not in Libtool's
> name space, and it lacks updates to NEWS, libtool.texi, and the test
> suite. Oh yes, the --enable-shared code has similar problems, but a
> patch shouldn't be held
* Ollie Wild wrote on Mon, Nov 01, 2010 at 09:55:36PM CET:
> On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Ollie Wild wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:32:08PM CEST:
> > > > Modify --with-pic to support per-package configurations.
> > > > * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Modify
On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 3:44 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
>
> Hi Ollie,
>
> * Ollie Wild wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:32:08PM CEST:
> > > Modify --with-pic to support per-package configurations.
> > > * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Modify --with-pic to accept a list of
> > > packa
Hi Ollie,
* Ollie Wild wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:32:08PM CEST:
> > Modify --with-pic to support per-package configurations.
> > * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Modify --with-pic to accept a list of
> > package names. Modelled off --enable-shared.
>
> Peter, thanks for notic
Hello Ollie,
* Ollie Wild wrote on Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 06:32:08PM CEST:
> 2010-10-21 Ollie Wild
>
> Modify --with-pic to support per-package configurations.
> * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Modify --with-pic to accept a list of
> package names. Modelled off --enable-shared.
Thi
On 10/22/2010 03:02 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
There is never any need to quote the right-hand side of assignments,
unless you have literal whitespace in them. If you do
a=foo; b=" bar"; c=$a$b; d=$c
both $c and $d will be "foo bar".
See 'Shell Substitutions' in the 'Portable Shell' chapter in
Hi Ollie,
Den 2010-10-22 18:32 skrev Ollie Wild:
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>> 2010-10-21 Ollie Wild
>>
>>Modify --with-pic to support per-package configurations.
>>* libltdl/m4/libtool.m4: Modify --with-pic to accept a list of
>>package names
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Ollie Wild wrote:
>
> This is motivated by GCC. We compile Fortran shared libraries which
> must execute on systems with no libgfortrans.so. The usual approach,
> passing --with-pic to configure is undesirable because it reduces the
> performance of other static
Den 2010-10-22 08:21 skrev Peter Rosin:
>> + for pkg in "$withval"; do
>
> No quotes *allowed*.
> for pkg in $withval; do
>
> If you have quotes here, isn't the changed IFS meaningless?
> This is the issue that made me send the mail, the others are not really
> important.
Oh, forgot to ment
Hi Ollie,
Den 2010-10-22 00:29 skrev Ollie Wild:
> This is motivated by GCC. We compile Fortran shared libraries which
> must execute on systems with no libgfortrans.so. The usual approach,
> passing --with-pic to configure is undesirable because it reduces the
> performance of other static libr
14 matches
Mail list logo
