Peter O'Gorman wrote: > The gcj in /usr/local/bin does indeed add -liconv, thank you for > confirming my suspicion. > > Ralf has already checked in a workaround for gcj being unable to create > objects/executables. I guess I will add to that so it tests that an > executable created by the compiler will actually run.
Ok? Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com
2008-03-07 Peter O'Gorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * tests/convenience.at (Java convenience archives): Skip test if gcj cannot compile a working executable from .java files. Report by Nelson H. F. Beebe. Index: tests/convenience.at =================================================================== RCS file: /sources/libtool/libtool/tests/convenience.at,v retrieving revision 1.9 diff -u -r1.9 convenience.at --- tests/convenience.at 6 Mar 2008 19:59:25 -0000 1.9 +++ tests/convenience.at 7 Mar 2008 07:38:32 -0000 @@ -262,8 +262,10 @@ # There are just too many broken gcj installations out there, either missing # libgcj.spec or unable to find it. Skip this test for them. if test $i -eq 1; then - AT_CHECK[($GCJ $GCJFLAGS -c foo1.java || exit 77], [], [ignore], [ignore]) - rm -f foo1.o foo1.obj + AT_CHECK([$GCJ $GCJFLAGS -c foo1.java || exit 77], [], [ignore], [ignore]) + AT_CHECK([$GCJ $GCJFLAGS --main=foo1 -o foo1 foo1.java A1.java || exit 77],[],[ignore],[ignore]) + AT_CHECK([./foo1$(EXEEXT) || exit 77],[],[ignore],[ignore]) + rm -f foo1.o foo1.obj foo1$(EXEEXT) fi $LIBTOOL --tag=GCJ --mode=compile $GCJ $GCJFLAGS -c foo$i.java
_______________________________________________ Bug-libtool mailing list Bug-libtool@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-libtool
