Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > On 6 Mar 2008, at 20:04, Peter O'Gorman wrote: >> Peter O'Gorman wrote: >>> Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> libtool: link: f90 -shared -Qoption ld --whole-archive >>>>> ./.libs/liba1.a ./.libs/liba2.a -Qoption ld --no-whole-archive >>>>> -Qoption ld -soname -Qoption ld liba12.so.0 -o >>>>> .libs/liba12.so.0.0.0 >>>>> /convenience.at:211: exit code was 1, expected 0 >>>>> 18. convenience.at:169: 18. FC convenience archives >>>>> (convenience.at:169): FAILED (convenience.at:211) >>> >>> Libtool detected FC as f90, but otherwise used the gcc tools. I'll look >>> into this. >>> >> >> Because we generally use the same archive_cmds for F77, FC as for CXX, >> things can get a little messed up. This "fixes" the most common case, >> gcc, g++, g77/gfortran & some other fortran compiler, by pretending the >> "other fortran compiler" does not exist. >> >> Thoughts? > > What happens to a project written with gnu C and vendor fortran? Will > this test spot g++ and refuse to build the fortran files?
Depends on if those fortran compilers have their own rules or if they are inheriting. > > Maybe we should look into tagging the archive_cmds instead. I did not see this mail til just now (after the commit). Want me to revert? Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com _______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list Bug-libtool@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool