At Tuesday 13 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 09:20:04PM CEST:
I have to compile and link a Fortran 77 test program. and then
run it redirecting its stdout/stderr (I need to do so to verify
that the `stop' builtin
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The problem is verifying correctness of building packages in batches.
i.e. to monitor/inspect CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, LDFLAGS etc. in compiler calls etc.
for correctness
(NB: A package, which compiles without warning doesn't mean it is being built
On 10/13/2009 04:49 PM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
The problem is verifying correctness of building packages in batches.
i.e. to monitor/inspect CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS, LDFLAGS etc. in compiler
calls etc. for correctness
(NB: A package, which compiles
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 23:48, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de wrote:
Thanks. The rebuild rule is generated alright, but nothing depends on
the output file. So adding
all-local: git_version
to lib/Makefile.am would be one possibility. In your case, you should
add git_version as
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:22:51PM CEST:
What matters to me is that the *program generated* by the compiler,
when executed, is not too verbose w.r.t. the `stop' builtin.
Then you should be able to use AC_RUN_IFELSE. To allow for cross
compilation, in the fourth
At Tuesday 13 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues ralf.wildenh...@gmx.de
wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:22:51PM CEST:
What matters to me is that the *program generated* by the
compiler, when executed, is not too verbose w.r.t. the `stop'
builtin.
Then you should be
This mail being caused by having received the warning quoted below:
configure: WARNING: In the future, Autoconf will not detect cross-tools
whose name does not start with the host triplet. If you think this
configuration is useful to you, please write to autoc...@gnu.org.
I indeed 'think' that
Dear GNU Staffs
Hello, here is 'make check' failed-report on 08/10/2009 11:00 JST.
I hope this report will be useful to repair.
Thanks a lot for your works,
Nozomi KATO
k...@interlink-j.com
testsuite.log
Description: Binary data
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
I indeed 'think' that naming programs according to any taxonomy I
might consider to be convenient, possibly including no taxonomy at
all (why shouldn't I call a cross-compiler 'Julia', should I so
desire?) is useful to me.
You are free to call your
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Rainer Weikusat on 10/13/2009 9:49 AM:
This mail being caused by having received the warning quoted below:
configure: WARNING: In the future, Autoconf will not detect cross-tools
whose name does not start with the host triplet. If
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Corsepius on 10/13/2009 9:20 AM:
What work does it cause except for using --disable-silent-rules at
configure time or V=1 at make time?
Exactly this is the problem.
The problem isn't the support for silent rules. The problem is
We have a makefile in a project, which works well. In the short term at
least, we do not want to use autoconf to create a makefile, but instead
use our own.
However, it would be nice to have a configure script at the top, which
at least supports --help and a few other things like that. But we
On 10/14/2009 02:58 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to Ralf Corsepius on 10/13/2009 9:20 AM:
What work does it cause except for using --disable-silent-rules at
configure time or V=1 at make time?
Exactly this is the problem.
The problem isn't
On Tuesday 13 October 2009 21:13:29 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
We have a makefile in a project, which works well. In the short term at
least, we do not want to use autoconf to create a makefile, but instead
use our own.
However, it would be nice to have a configure script at the top, which
at
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:13, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.netwrote:
We have a makefile in a project, which works well. In the short term at
least, we do not want to use autoconf to create a makefile, but instead use
our own.
However, it would be nice to have a configure script at
I'm trying to modify this macro
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/ax_count_cpus.m4
which attempt to get the number of CPUs in a system. I'd like to extend
it to cover Solaris, AIX and HP-UX.
It seems sensible to me to only do a test on a platform it
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 08:39:11PM CEST:
At Tuesday 13 October 2009, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
* Stefano Lattarini wrote on Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:22:51PM CEST:
What matters to me is that the *program generated* by the
compiler, when executed, is not too verbose
* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 06:36:36AM CEST:
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/ax_count_cpus.m4
This macro does not look well-designed. It does the wrong thing when
cross-compiling, or even only compiling for a different system
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:36:36AM +0100, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm trying to modify this macro
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m4/ax_count_cpus.m4
which attempt to get the number of CPUs in a system. I'd like to extend
it to cover Solaris, AIX
On Wednesday 14 October 2009 00:36:36 Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
I'm trying to modify this macro
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=autoconf-archive.git;a=blob_plain;f=m
4/ax_count_cpus.m4
which attempt to get the number of CPUs in a system. I'd like to extend
it to cover Solaris, AIX and
20 matches
Mail list logo
