On 28 Jan 2024 23:24, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2024-01-28 22:36, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 04 Mar 2020 13:43, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Autoconf itself has not been released since 2012. This feels like a
> >> long time to me, although not quite a
On 04 Mar 2020 13:43, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Mar 2020, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > These devices have been around for about a decade. There is no reason
> > to fail to recognize them after 10 years.
>
> Autoconf itself has not been released since 2012. This feels like a
> long time to
On 15 Feb 2022 20:25, Jacob Bachmeyer wrote:
> Dan Kegel wrote:
> > Meson is a candidate for such a next-gen config system. It is in python,
> > which does not quite qualify as usable during early uplift/bootstrap, but
> > there are C ports in progress, see e.g. https://sr.ht/~lattis/muon/
>
> *P
On 15 Feb 2022 08:29, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> A problem with xargs is that without using the GNU -O or --null
> argument and null-terminated arguments, file names containing spaces
> won't be handled properly. File names containing spaces is an issue
> for Autotools in general. This is again
On 14 Feb 2022 19:53, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 2/14/22 19:45, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > how portable is xargs ?
>
> It can be a porting problem, unfortunately. There are several corner
> cases that various implementations don't get right. I expect this is why
> the GN
context: https://bugs.gnu.org/53340
how portable is xargs ? like, beyond POSIX, as autoconf & automake both
support non-POSIX compliant systems. i want to use it in its simplest
form: `echo $var | xargs rm -f`.
automake jumps through some hoops to try and limit the length of generated
command l
On 24 Jan 2022 08:47, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2022, at 3:06 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > can we merge the various xxx_FOR_BUILD autoconf-archives into autoconf ?
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html
> > https://www.gnu.
can we merge the various xxx_FOR_BUILD autoconf-archives into autoconf ?
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cc_for_build.html
https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_prog_cxx_for_build.html
would be nice to have official names for these in autoconf itself as we
could th
On 25 Jan 2018 06:11, Victor Porton wrote:
> I want to add some C flags but only when the compiler is GCC, because
> GCC command line may not work with other compilers.
if you call AC_PROG_CC, it'll export $GCC you can check against "yes"
> -ansi -g -Wall -Werror -Wpedantic
are you sure you real
On 19 Dec 2016 08:03, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 12/18/2016 09:22 PM, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
> > We got report that GRUB build fails under glibc 2.25 due to issue fixed
> > in commit e17a30e9 (warnings about using major() etc from sys/types.h
> > with -Werror). It was confirmed that this commit fixes
On 10 Dec 2016 12:22, Bent Bisballe Nyeng wrote:
> I want to use the --no-undefined linker argument through the
> -Wl,--no-undefined CXXFLAGS. This is only supported by gcc but has a
> clang alternative: -Wl,-undefined,error.
you're referring to a linker option, not a compiler, so gcc/clang don'
On 21 Jul 2016 22:15, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
> I would personally be interested in a release of Autoconf 2.70 with
> updated config.sub and config.guess helper scripts. As a matter of
> fact, there are recent systems where I cannot configure Autoconf because
> of obsolete config.{sub,guess}; I then
On 22 Jun 2016 22:52, Olaf Mandel wrote:
> On 22.06.2016 21:12, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 22 Jun 2016 11:03, Olaf Mandel wrote:
> >> I am trying to use GNU Autotest (via AX_GNU_AUTOTEST()) to run
> >> end-to-end tests on a network server. [...]
> >>
>
On 22 Jun 2016 11:03, Olaf Mandel wrote:
> I am trying to use GNU Autotest (via AX_GNU_AUTOTEST()) to run
> end-to-end tests on a network server. My current test script looks
> somewhat like this:
>
> AT_CHECK([server&],, [ignore])
> AT_CHECK([client --cmd]), , [expected-output])
> AT_CHE
On 04 Mar 2016 19:16, Sean Byland wrote:
> Thanks. Targeting the least common denominator ISA to get portable code
> works well for many things but in this case I’m curious about getting
> better performance than portability.
that's not what you said. you said you wanted to build on a newer cpu
a
On 04 Mar 2016 16:11, Sean Byland wrote:
> I’m trying to help users get autotools-based projects to compile in our
> somewhat unique environment. It’s fairly common for users to want to compile
> on a Intel ivybridge system (node) with Intel broadwell-specific (a superset
> of CPU instructions)
On 15 Sep 2015 17:13, Peter Johansson wrote:
> I need to to extract the value of ${datadir} so I can use it something like
>
> val=*extract ${datadir}*
>
> AC_CHECK_FILE([$val], [], [AC_MSG_ERROR([file $val needed])])
you should never use AC_CHECK_FILE. it breaks cross-compilation.
-mike
sign
On 02 Mar 2015 08:48, Julian Marchant wrote:
> OK, I see where my confusion is. The makefile gets -lSDL2_image and
> -lSDL2_mixer out of a call to pkg-config. Now I've got to figure out
> why searching for SDL2_mixer is failing... but I've got some things to
> check in that regard.
if the librarie
On 10 Dec 2014 22:20, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> I am playing with the Gstreamer zbar plugin, which is an
> autoconfiscated library.
>
> It relies upon another autoconfiscated library, libzbar.
>
> I have a custom application which loads gstzbar, which, in turn, loads
> libzbar from /usr/lib/wherever
On 11 Jan 2015 21:56, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> $ ./configure --build=`./config.guess` --host=x86_64-linux-androideabi
> checking build system type... i686-apple-darwin12.5.0
> checking host system type... Invalid configuration
> `x86_64-linux-androideabi': system `androideabi' not recognized
> confi
On 09 Nov 2014 22:06, Patrick Doyle wrote:
> I am very new to developing autotools maintained projects, but like (a
> lot) what I've read so far. So, I would like to use autotools on
> projects going forward, but have a large body of legacy code to
> maintain. I would like to reference an include
On Sun 17 Aug 2014 18:50:54 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Aug 2014, Wookey wrote:
> > It's not really "en vogue", it's historic: many of the things that
> > have their own *-config scripts are sufficiently old that they
> > pre-date pkg-config so are not doing this just to be annoying. At the
On Sat 16 Aug 2014 00:21:02 Wookey wrote:
> +++ John Spencer [2014-08-15 23:49 +0200]:
> > It seems it's "en vogue" for libs to ship their own broken
> > replacement rather than supplying a portable pkgconfig file...
> > the list is big, but these here are the most often used ones:
> > pcap-config,
On Fri 04 Jul 2014 12:18:53 David A. Wheeler wrote:
> This does not help you right now, but Dale Visser posted a patch to autoconf
> a few months ago that would solve your problem correctly. His patch adds
> the ability to check if a compiler supports a particular flag. My hope is
> that this abili
On Wed 30 Jul 2014 22:32:50 Adam Jiang wrote:
> It seems there is a macro create for ncurses detection
>
> http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_with_curses.html
>
> This macro could help to find out include path and right libraries for
> libnruse.so.
>
> How about the c++ binding for
On Tuesday 14 January 2014 20:11:34 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > there's semi-precedence though with introducing new macros when there's
> > no
> >
> > confidence in safely converting existing one.
On Tuesday 14 January 2014 19:20:56 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Alexander Holler wrote:
> > I just was curious if there was some progress on that topic besides what
> > Ralf Wildenhues seemed to have tried out.
>
> The most challenging aspect is because configure scripts have a h
On Wednesday 31 July 2013 11:16:27 Nate Bargmann wrote:
> * On 2013 31 Jul 08:03 -0500, LRN wrote:
> > On 31.07.2013 16:17, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> > > Should we be distributing a config script, e.g. bin/xxx-config that can
> > > emit CPPFLAGS?
> >
> > Either that, or distribute a .pc file for pkg-
On Thursday 18 July 2013 19:51:51 Russ Allbery wrote:
> It doesn't -- but neither of those use the lib64/lib32 layout either,
> because that layout can't represent that difference. They do something
> more complicated (they have to). So basically it's out of scope for what
> my macro is trying to
On Sunday 02 June 2013 01:10:36 Kip Warner wrote:
> On Sat, 2013-06-01 at 23:14 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > be aware that what ever version of glibc & gcc you use to build, the end
> > user cannot have a version older than that or it'll fail to start
>
> Do y
On Saturday 01 June 2013 19:27:46 Kip Warner wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-31 at 08:31 -0500, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > I don't quite understand why you think you need the rest linked
> > statically,
>
> Libraries like the following may not be present on the end user's system
> already:
be aware that w
On Thursday 23 May 2013 10:31:26 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 11:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > my point for keeping the automatic search behavior is so that people
> > don't have to pour through --help output and set yet-more esoteric
> > variables so things &quo
On Wednesday 22 May 2013 12:27:38 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/22/2013 10:22 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> I would MUCH rather see us honor a CONFIG_GUESS and CONFIG_SUB
> >> environment variable, rather than baking in a PATH search. This topic
> >> has come up in t
On Saturday 18 May 2013 07:45:54 Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
> > /usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.override or
> > config.guess.override file in the sou
On Monday 20 May 2013 10:37:00 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 05:45 AM, Paul Wise wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-05-17 at 16:05 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> >> Yes. It would have been really useful if autofoo used whatever is in
> >> /usr/share/misc, unless there is a config.sub.overrid
On Tuesday 21 May 2013 09:57:32 Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Tuesday 2013-05-21 07:33, Pavel Raiskup wrote:
> >> Works for me. But we [distros] do want to mandate autoreconf anyway in
> >> the general case: it is the *only* way to keep upstream honest about
> >> the much hated build system not bitro
On Thursday 16 May 2013 15:28:39 Warren Young wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 14:27, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
> > we've got pretty good coverage for anything passably relevant (and then
> > some).
>
> So, because Gento
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 15:25:31 Warren Young wrote:
> On 5/15/2013 11:20, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > i understand the point you're making. however, ~10 years of building
> > from source in Gentoo and doing this for every single build has shown
> > that in practice,
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 12:26:46 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 06:13 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >> On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >>> On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise
On Wednesday 15 May 2013 09:54:08 Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 05:53 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
> >> So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
> >> Unfortunately we are also com
On Monday 08 October 2012 08:46:57 Paul Wise wrote:
> So, Debian is in the process of bringing up our upcoming arm64 port.
> Unfortunately we are also coming across lots of packages with rather
> outdated config.guess and config.sub files (see links below). We could
> patch every single package tha
On Thursday 09 May 2013 11:24:27 Zack Weinberg wrote:
> (That said, I've never been clear myself on why CFLAGS and CPPFLAGS
> *are* separate, except possibly the now-long-obsolete historical
> reason that some traditional preprocessors didn't accept arbitrary
> compiler options.)
because there are
On Wednesday 08 May 2013 01:01:06 Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 05/07/2013 08:49 PM, Anatol Pomozov wrote:
> > recent versions of glibc produces a
> > warning when it compiles apps with _FORTIFY_SOURCE but without -O2
>
> That's a real problem, which will break lots of things.
i complained when the cha
On Thursday 18 April 2013 14:06:12 A.P. Horst wrote:
> been trying my way in autotools land for a short while now, and I must
> say, it works like a charm.
> But there is one thing I've been breaking my head on for a while now.
> Many of my projects use GCC, some use a totally different compiler an
On Friday 12 April 2013 18:02:36 NightStrike wrote:
> This is for a pthread replacement library that should be compilable
> before we have a working compiler. I did not make the initial build
> system for this, so I have to see what problem this macro is trying to
> solve.
>
> Conceivably, though
On Friday 12 April 2013 16:38:29 NightStrike wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > On 04/12/2013 02:20 PM, NightStrike wrote:
> >> Why are link tests not allowed when cross compiling? You don't have
> >> to run the exe to verify that linking worked.
> >
> > What gave yo
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 02:55:23 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 18 December 2012 01:10:14 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> If you are going to try the waters with warnings, you should also
> >> consider
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 00:28:14 David A. Wheeler wrote:
> Jim Meyering said:
> > Did you realize that several GNU projects now enable virtually
> > every gcc warning that is available (even including those that
> > are new in the upcoming gcc-4.8, for folks that use bleeding edge gcc)
> > via
On Tuesday 18 December 2012 01:10:14 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> If you are going to try the waters with warnings, you should also
> consider the flags to integrate with platform security.
>
> Platform security integration includes fortified sources and stack
> protectors. Here are the flags of intere
On Wednesday 19 September 2012 14:03:51 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Bastien ROUCARIES writes:
> > See autoconf-archive mavcros
> > http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_create_pkgconfig_info.htm
> > l#ax_create_pkgconfig_info
>
> That macro has gotten better (it at least doesn't put the user'
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 18:28:52 Russ Allbery wrote:
> special exceptions. Being able to turn of executable stack as at least
> another easily-accessible option is an interesting idea, and I may raise
> that on debian-devel. (Although it can be a little hard to predict which
> packages need t
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 18:17:37 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> The posture would have saved a number of folks from, for example,
> Pidgin's latest rounds of Critical Vulnerabilities (memory corruption
> and code execution). No-exec stacks and heaps would have reduced
> many/most to an annoying UI pro
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 15:15:07 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 August 2012 13:47:30 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -fPIE -pie -Wno-unused-parameter -Wformat=2
> >
> > re
On Wednesday 22 August 2012 13:47:30 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> -Wall -Wextra -Wconversion -fPIE -pie -Wno-unused-parameter -Wformat=2
read the log you actually posted. you aren't using -pie (which would be
correct), you're using -Wl,-pie (which is wrong).
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is
On Tuesday 21 August 2012 23:10:28 Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
> > Anyway, you didn't clarified how such special flags are required,
> > and the coverages of the objects to be compiled with the special
> > flags, so nobody will be able to the answer to be used immediately.
>
> I was not awa
On Monday 21 May 2012 05:37:37 Steffen Dettmer wrote:
> for a project I needed to select C++98. When using g++, this is done
> by adding compiler flag "-std=c++98". I liked to have a compiler check
> whether this option works.
check out this:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf-archive/ax_check_c
you probably want to read chapter 14:
http://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Manual-Configuration
-mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.o
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 12:03:43 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote:
> >> Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz:
> >> - xz decompresses more quickly
> >
> > is that true ? i thought last
On Tuesday 06 March 2012 04:57:27 Jim Meyering wrote:
> Why I am happy to dump gzip for xz:
> - xz decompresses more quickly
is that true ? i thought last i looked, they were close, but gzip was
consistently slightly faster. maybe if the bottleneck is more I/O than
CPU/memory, xz would win ?
On Saturday 03 March 2012 16:12:47 James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2012 15:47:22 -0500 Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > As a project downstream from xz, if we must have yet another
> > > compression format independent of gzip, why not let it live along
> > > sid
On Saturday 03 March 2012 14:52:37 James K. Lowden wrote:
> Why does such an arcane, uninteresting technology warrant advertizing
> via a new utility and suffix? Why isn't xz a feature of zlib, so that
> unzipping applications could automatically use it? If the xz folks
> are determined to suppla
On Friday 02 March 2012 20:08:54 James K. Lowden wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 16:48:07 -0700 Warren Young wrote:
> > I still use systems[*] that don't have tar -J, and am likely to
> > continue doing so for many years to come. Installing xz isn't a big
> > deal, but typing the longer commands need
On Friday 02 March 2012 16:41:24 Tim Rice wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > uhh, Sabayon does have xz-utils and has for quite a long time now. after
> > all, it's simply Gentoo at its core, and Gentoo has had xz-utils for a
> > long time.
> >
On Friday 02 March 2012 15:44:53 Olaf Lenz wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 07:33 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > uhh, Sabayon does have xz-utils and has for quite a long time now.
> > after all, it's simply Gentoo at its core, and Gentoo has had
> > xz-utils for a long time.
&g
On Friday 02 March 2012 11:09:13 Olaf Lenz wrote:
> On 03/02/2012 05:45 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
> > The Autoconf team is considering releasing only .xz files for 2.69;
> > if this would be a hardship for you, and you need the .gz or .bz2
> > release, please speak up now.
>
> I want to second Bob Fri
On Thursday 12 January 2012 18:32:15 Eric Blake wrote:
> First, I'd suggest that you _don't_ use basename(); it has severe
> portability problems (POSIX allows, but does not require, it to modify
> its incoming argument
and some systems (like some *BSDs) do modify it :(
-mike
signature.asc
Descr
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 16:10:29 Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2012-01-10 15:41 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday 09 January 2012 18:49:28 Eric Blake wrote:
> > > On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > > > It creates the needed files, but exits
On Monday 09 January 2012 18:49:28 Eric Blake wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > It creates the needed files, but exits with status 1. Is there anyway
> > to generate config.sub without relying on Automake,
>
> Use 'cp'. That's all the more automake was doing when it outp
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 15:35:58 Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 2012/1/10 Mike Frysinger:
> > On Tuesday 10 January 2012 03:38:03 Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> 2012/1/10 Eric Blake:
> >> > On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> >> AC_C
On Tuesday 10 January 2012 03:38:03 Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> 2012/1/10 Eric Blake:
> > On 01/09/2012 03:46 PM, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> >> AC_CANONICAL_HOST
> >
> > As documented in
> > https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/manual/autoconf.html#Canonicalizing
> > , if you use AC_CANONICAL_*, then
On Monday 12 December 2011 04:02:50 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Friday 09 December 2011 06:21:18 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> >> I am trying to build a program so that it does not refer to shared
> >> libraries by
On Sunday 11 December 2011 07:32:38 mi16 wrote:
> ./configure: line 2958: syntax error near unexpected token `MGTKMM,'
> ./configure: line 2958: `PKG_CHECK_MODULES(MGTKMM, gtkmm-2.4 >= 2.22.0)'
you're missing the m4 from the pkg-config package. install the relevant dev
packages from your distro
On Friday 09 December 2011 06:21:18 Rainer Gerhards wrote:
> I am trying to build a program so that it does not refer to shared
> libraries by their version-specific name but rather a generic one. My
> intent is to use checkinstall to generate packages.
>
> As a concrete example, I use some basic
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 16:18:26 Nick Bowler wrote:
> On 2011-12-07 15:31 -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 December 2011 14:10:27 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> > > >> C++ compilers do not get thes
On Wednesday 07 December 2011 14:10:27 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Dec 2011, Werner LEMBERG wrote:
> >> C++ compilers do not get these definition from stdint.h unless
> >> __STDC_LIMIT_MACROS is defined, the macros are in C99 and later, but
> >> were not in the C++ standard of the day (I don
On Friday 11 November 2011 11:13:22 Till Elsner wrote:
> Ok, here we go: The following configure.ac seems to serve as a
> minimal example:
> --- begin configure.ac ---
> AC_PREREQ([2.68])
> AC_INIT([actest], [1])
> AC_SEARCH_LIBS([MD5], [ssl]);
> AC_OUTPUT
> --- end configure.ac ---
>
> I only hav
On Thursday 10 November 2011 18:03:12 Till Elsner wrote:
> I'm trying to configure my own package.
> I've located the relevant portion in the configure file. It's
> the section with cares for the SSL lib, which matches the fact
> that removing the SSL line from the configure.ac file also
> removes
On Wednesday 02 November 2011 14:34:55 Candy Brady wrote:
> Does anyone know of any useful tutorials on how to write an autotest script
> to test a c file in a package?
> I can an only find one document on autotest, and it does not explain how
> you can write an autotest suite. ie What a person ne
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 12:28, H.J. Lu wrote:
> 1. The file name of an x32 binary package needs to be marked as x32.
i would think this would be completely a package manager issue and out
of scope for any ABI project such as x32
-mike
___
Autoconf mail
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 01:03:19 Michael LIAO wrote:
> I am not asking a dedicated triplet for x32 to be used exclusively for
> x32 package build. I am asking additional triplet with enough details
> of execution environment (ABI definitely a necessary detail.) for
> package which relies on tr
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 22:55:35 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
> >> The current scheme documented on website
> >> (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) us
On Monday, October 03, 2011 23:26:25 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > in terms of asm code, it's still possible to use ifdef's to handle cases
> > where you truly need different code paths.
>
> Yeah, we could have
On Monday, October 03, 2011 19:47:57 Michael LIAO wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 4:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote:
> >> Most examples would be related to tools generating code.
> >>
> >> Suppose you
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:57:28 Michael LIAO wrote:
please don't top post
> Most examples would be related to tools generating code.
>
> Suppose you have a software package with several hard-coded fully
> optimized assembly file for different targets. Your build system need
> to know the cu
On Monday, October 03, 2011 18:25:46 Michael LIAO wrote:
> As x32 psABI (https://sites.google.com/site/x32abi/) is invented, do
> we need a new triplet for system relies on triplet to figure out it's
> targeted on x32 environment. The new triplet would look like
> 'x86_64-unknown-linux-gnux32' for
On Monday, June 20, 2011 12:50:02 Jim Edwards wrote:
> As I understand it, I should be able to bootstrap on a single system, check
> in the resulting configure and Makefile.in files then on other systems
> I should only need to run configure. But this doesn't seem to be working,
> I get something
On Saturday, April 16, 2011 05:26:37 Gilles wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 18:41:41 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >so change it to #ifdef
>
> The whole point of my question was: opkg's gz_open.c contains the
> following code:
>
> if (uClinux) {
>
On Friday, April 15, 2011 21:54:28 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> Regardless, using posix_spawn() or posix_spawnp() is a better solution
> now if one does not need the full-fledged fork().
in some cases, that is sufficient, assuming that the system in question does
support posix_spawn. we cant all be
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:53:24 Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >> If you do not want to "force" people to change their code, you will
> >> probably need to offer a "stub" fork() to link against on non-MMU CPUs.
&
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:28:39 Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Giles wrote:
> > Thanks Bob, but some applications don't use conditional compiling and
> > simply use code like this:
> >
> > if (uClinux) {
> >
> > *pid = vfork();
> >
> > } else {
> >
> > *pid = fork();
> >
> > }
>
On Friday, April 15, 2011 18:23:03 Gilles wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2011 21:07:07 -0500 (CDT), Bob Friesenhahn
>
> wrote:
> >The proper solution for this is to have configure test for both fork()
> >and vfork() (and maybe posix_spawn()). Then you have to decide which
> >one you prefer:
> >
> >In c
On Monday, March 07, 2011 14:46:56 Reuben Thomas wrote:
> To allow for multiple architectures, I use
>
> ./configure --prefix=/home/rrt/local --exec-prefix=/home/rrt/local/`uname
> -m`
>
> to configure code I want to install in my home directory, which may be
> copied on to machines with differen
On Tuesday, December 07, 2010 13:56:35 Bruce Korb wrote:
> Thank you. automake list folks -- the main question is
> "Why are .m4 files being installed and how can I prevent it?"
because your top level Makefile.am is using:
aclocal_DATA = ...
when i think you should be using:
noinst_DATA = ...
(ob
On Friday, October 15, 2010 14:56:51 Václav Haisman wrote:
> I am having difficulty testing for compiler features like
> __declspec(dllimport) and switches like -Wall or -Werror.
look at the autoconf-archive package. it has macros to help with testing for
compiler switches and compiler attribute
On Friday, August 06, 2010 20:19:41 Tao Wang wrote:
please dont top post
> Thank you. It works for my C/C++ files.
> However, how it works on text file and script file? They don't have
> compiler to pass the define from parameters. For most scripts, they don't
> accept bash syntax "${prefix}", th
On Wednesday, August 04, 2010 01:36:34 Tao Wang wrote:
> I created 'src/foobar.h.in' with following content:
>
> =
> #define PATH_PREFIX"@prefix@"
> #define PATH_DATADIR"@datadir@"
> =
>
> And put 'src/foobar.h' in AC_CONFIG_FILES() in 'configure.ac'.
>
> After I run 'aut
On Saturday, July 03, 2010 15:59:35 Eric Blake wrote:
> Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to release 2.67 for another
> two weeks; if it helps, then hopefully distro packagers will
> pick this up before they build 2.66 into a distro.
does that include pushing fixes to git ? usually i cut upstr
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 16:35:30 Wesley Smith wrote:
> >> For 64bit builds, I need to #define x86_64 for a lib I'm using. It
> >> has nothing to do with the size of longs from my perspective, but
> >> whether the binary is compiled for a 64 or 32 bit target.
> >
> > is it a binary-only library
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 16:26:08 Wesley Smith wrote:
please dont top post
> For 64bit builds, I need to #define x86_64 for a lib I'm using. It
> has nothing to do with the size of longs from my perspective, but
> whether the binary is compiled for a 64 or 32 bit target.
is it a binary-only li
On Tuesday, June 29, 2010 14:26:29 Wesley Smith wrote:
> What's the appropriate way to determine 32 v. 64 bit compilation?
what exactly is it you're concerned with ? if it's sizes of specific types,
then do as Bob said and check individual types. you cannot make assumptions
when the target is
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
