This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
I use static linking every day for the embedded target.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 12:03:16PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
I use it heavily e.g. to build debug tools for embedded systems where
the rootfs doesn't match my cross-toolchain.
With kind
On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Roger Leigh rle...@codelibre.net wrote:
[...]
This is not meant to sound like a troll, but: is anyone really
*really* using static linking in 2011?
Yes, in my company we link almost all our own libraries
statically to our own applications. (however, we use some
'Afternoon,
I've run into a known libtool hiccup where '-fopenmp' is not stored
within libsomething.la. Binaries later linked against libsomething.la
run into linker problems because -fopenmp is not specified at link
time. A workaround appears to be at
Hi,
I have a simple function in an m4 file that is a convenience to output
information. The function takes two parameters
function foo () {
If test $# != 2 ; then
exit 1
fi
}
However, Autoconf expands $#. How can I escape $#, so that it will remain as-is
in the configure script? I
Thanks Ben, I ended up going with ${#}, but $[#] also works nicely.
(Sorry for posting here, I did end up sending this to autoconf)
On 3/11/11 3:31 PM, Ben Pfaff b...@cs.stanford.edu wrote:
Too, Justin A. t...@llnl.gov writes:
However, Autoconf expands $#. How can I escape $#, so that it
will
