Re: Disable --whole-archive when using convenience archives

[ http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/10586 ] Hello Alon, * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 08:00:19PM CET: > It is find if you don't want to solve this, but please acknowledge > that you don't. > So far I did not get any response regarding this issue. I'm really s

Re: link-time optimization

Hello Simon, Török, Åke, * Simon Richter wrote on Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 12:11:13PM CET: > I'm trying to use link time optimization with gcc 4.5, which somewhat > works :), but requires the compiler flags to be passed to the linking > step as well. libtool however removes them from the command line.

Re: Libtool breaks linking order

Hello Guillaume, * Guillaume Rousse wrote on Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 03:00:01PM CEST: > When building nfs-utils, I have a strange linking order issue with > libtool (2.2.6b). > > The makefile.am reads: > gssd_LDADD =../../support/nfs/libnfs.a \ > $(RPCSECGSS_LIBS) $(GSSGLUE_LIBS) $(KRBLIBS) > > (

Re: link-time optimization

Hello Simon, * Simon Richter wrote on Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 01:12:08PM CEST: > On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:33:44PM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > * doc/libtool.texi (FAQ, Stripped link flags): New nodes. > > (Wrapper executables): Replace bug address with macro. >

Autoconf tests, libtool symlist files, undefined behavior, and LTO

Hello gcc and libtool lists, Summary: both Autoconf-generated configure tests as well as some Libtool construct invoke undefined behavior. Question is how to deal with it, and whether GCC, as QoI, may want to define behavior in these cases. 1) Autoconf-generated configure tests often fake the p

Re: Autoconf tests, libtool symlist files, undefined behavior, and LTO

* Richard Guenther wrote on Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:02:39AM CEST: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 8:52 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > 1) Autoconf-generated configure tests often fake the prototype of some > > function; e.g., AC_CHECK_FUNC([func]) uses > >  char func(); > >

how to "parse" gcc -v output

Hello gcc and libtool lists, Both Autoconf and Libtool have macros which "parse" output of 'gcc -v' for some link commands. Yes, I know, almost by definition this is not "parseable" text, but GCC does not provide a stable API that allows to find out - which libraries it needs to link shared modul

Re: link-time optimization

* Ralf Wildenhues wrote on Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 05:33:44PM CEST: > > I'm still working on a patch to support -flto in libtool, it needs > changes in several places. I have a preliminary(!) patch set here for LTO support in libtool. DO NOT submit this to your favorite distribut

[PATCH 3/4] Uniform const'ness of symlist variable lt_preloaded_symbols.

tdl/ltdl.h (LTDL_SET_PRELOADED_SYMBOLS): Likewise. Signed-off-by: Ralf Wildenhues --- Hello, this patch addresses the const-ness of the symlist variable. I would like things to be consistent across ltmain, libtool.m4 (where we test symbol-pipe functionality), and ltdl.h, and since the latter can't depend on co

[PATCH 4/4] Add $pic_flag to archive_cmds and archive_expsym_cmds.

, irix6]: Add $pic_flag if $GXX. [osf4, osf5]: Likewise. [solaris]: Add $pic_flag if $GXX and not GCC 2.7. Signed-off-by: Ralf Wildenhues --- Hello, This untested patch cleans up a number of hard-coded -fPIC entries in archive_cmds and archive_expsym_cmds settings, and adds $pic_flag to all that

Re: how to "parse" gcc -v output

* Joseph S. Myers wrote on Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 11:40:19AM CEST: > On Sun, 4 Apr 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > - which libraries it needs to link shared modules against, or > > - which libraries are needed to let g++ link mixed C++/Fortran code, > > so in practice

Re: link-time optimization

* Török Edwin wrote on Sun, Apr 04, 2010 at 06:03:35PM CEST: > On 04/04/2010 11:54 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I have a preliminary(!) patch set here for LTO support in libtool. > Thanks a lot for the patches, they worked fine so far! Thanks for testing. > I'd have one

Re: Linking specific library as static

* Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 04:56:23PM CEST: > How can I link statically with a specific library? Search the libtool lists for 'per-deplib static' and you will find a proposed patch that should still mostly apply. There were smaller issues left to do IIRC. Cheers, Ralf ___

Re: libtool versioning

Hello Jef, * Jef Driesen wrote on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 09:08:14AM CEST: > On 02/05/10 03:33, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >On Sun, 2 May 2010, Jef Driesen wrote: > > > >>I'm trying to understand the libtool current:revision:age versioning scheme. > >>I think I understand how it works, but I noticed th

Re: libtool versioning

Hello, * Matěj Týč wrote on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:45:26PM CEST: > If I have understood correctly, the whole LTversion stuff has only one > purpose - to inform users what have they installed. Wrong. It provides a fairly portable abstraction of different versioning schemes implemented in differ

Re: libtool versioning

* Jef Driesen wrote on Mon, May 03, 2010 at 08:24:09PM CEST: > Yes, I have read the libtool manual, but it doesn't contain much > info about the resulting filename. Most of the info is about the > c:r:a scheme for input, not the output. Yes, because the output file name is a per-system detail that

Re: Rebooting the release process

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 09:59:16AM CEST: > 1. Check that the current HEAD is not totally broken on any of the > 20-some architectures I have access to. And supply or solicit fixes > for any of those platforms anyone still cares about. there is probably not eve

Re: libtool versioning

* Peter Rosin wrote on Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:05:37AM CEST: > Den 2010-05-03 22:03 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: [...] > >>>>># 3. If the library source code has changed at all since the last > >>>>>update, > >>>>># then increment

Re: Rebooting the release process

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, May 05, 2010 at 07:17:38AM CEST: > On 5 May 2010, at 00:55, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > Somebody noted (off-list) that our bootstrap leaves information specific > > from the person doing a release in the resulting tarball. Specifically, >

Re: When to bump library api version (current)

Hello, * Adam Mercer wrote on Thu, May 20, 2010 at 06:43:38AM CEST: > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 23:36, Daniel Herring wrote: > > ISTM that this is not an ABI change; the addition of const only affects the > > code being called, and in a manner compatible with the non-const version > > (assuming call

Re: GNU Libtool 2.2.7b released (2.2.8 release candidate).

Hello, please don't Cc: autotools-announce on discussions. Thanks. * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sat, May 22, 2010 at 09:44:46AM CEST: > If I read your response correctly, all is needed is to set: > lt_cv_deplibs_check_method="pass_all" > For mingw hosts. > > But I am no expert in libtool, and it is

Re: GNU Libtool 2.2.7b released (2.2.8 release candidate).

* Adam Mercer wrote on Fri, May 21, 2010 at 07:23:38PM CEST: > Just updated one of my projects to use libtool-2.2.7b and configure > now fails with: > > configure: error: conditional "am__fastdepCXX" was never defined. > Usually this means the macro was only invoked conditionally. > > in configur

Re: GNU Libtool 2.2.7b released (2.2.8 release candidate).

* Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sat, May 22, 2010 at 11:13:50AM CEST: > On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sat, May 22, 2010 at 09:44:46AM CEST: > >> If I read your response correctly, all is needed is to set: > >> lt_cv_dep

Re: Question about relink_command

Hello, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, May 31, 2010 at 05:53:26PM CEST: > AFAIK Linux binaries/libraries can be built in the build tree with > no hardcoded references to other objects in the build tree, so they > can always be copied into the install tree and continue working > (although libtool h

Re: Building shared libraries at configuration time

Hello Ludovic, Bob has already addressed the rest of this I think, so: * Ludovic Courtès wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 01:15:32AM CEST: > So it seems that the right test, when compiling natively, involves > building a shared library and an executable linked against it, and > running that executab

Re: Building shared libraries at configuration time

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 04:48:48PM CEST: [ __thread ] > > You will likely find that 'valgrind' is not particularly friendly or > helpful to diagnose memory problems in applications using this > extension. Is that still the case with valgrind 3.5? Its testsuite co

Re: rewrite of ltdl and c++

Hello, * Peter O'Gorman wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 05:12:41PM CEST: > On 06/10/2010 09:45 AM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >>I think it would be better in c++. > > > >No, that would mean you have to jump through hoops to use it from C. > It's simple to write a library in C++ but make its public in

Re: pr-msvc-support merge

Hello, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 04:35:41PM CEST: > On 10 Jun 2010, at 20:55, Peter Rosin wrote: > > However, I guess the situation is very much the same as with > > $CC and the compile script and that seems to work. I just don't > > understand exactly how. That's pretty muc

Re: pr-msvc-support merge

* Peter Rosin wrote on Sat, Jun 12, 2010 at 12:49:18AM CEST: > Ok, let's take a step back. This is no longer really merging > work from the branch, so since A) using MS lib as archiver isn't > essential for MSVC support (at least I don't think so, I can't > remember any case where binutils ar hasn'

Re: pr-msvc-support merge

[ adding automake-patches; this is http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gnu.libtool.general/10927/focus=10954 ] * Peter Rosin wrote on Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:35:45AM CEST: > Den 2010-06-12 10:05 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > >Well, I sort of figured that the 'compile' script cou

Re: upgrading from 2.2 to 2.2.8

Hello Sam, * Sam Steingold wrote on Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 07:04:31PM CEST: > I upgraded my libtool.m4 from 2.2 to 2.2.8 and now aclocal fails: [...] > apparently, I must include some other files in addition to libtool.m4: > > 4 argz.m4 28 ltdl.m4 8 ltsugar.m4 4 ltversion.m4 > 2

Re: Blackfin and version scripts

Hello Russ, all, * Russ Allbery wrote on Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:00:04PM CEST: > I would dearly, dearly love for libtool to pick up a --version-script > option that would pass in the full version script on platforms with > linkers that understand it, turn it into a symbol export list on platforms

Re: Blackfin and version scripts

Hello Werner, all, * Werner Koch wrote on Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 11:42:43AM CEST: > Mike and Robin found a build problem with libgcrypt on Blackfin using > the GNU toolchain: Libgcrypt as most other GnuPG related libraries tries > to keep a well defined ABI and thus use a version script to guarantee

Re: Blackfin and version scripts

* Werner Koch wrote on Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 09:46:01AM CEST: > On Wed, 23 Jun 2010 07:29, r...@stanford.edu said: > > > I can take a pass at starting. All that I need for my packages is to > > support the basic version syntax: > > > > { > > global: > > ; > > That would be suff

Re: Empty allow_undefined_flag in libtool.m4 seems to cause undefined symbol errors on Linux

Hello Ben, any chance you could get your mailer to word-wrap at 72 chars? Thanks. * Ben Roberts wrote on Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 01:55:51AM CEST: > I've been trying to adapt a set of libraries and programs to use > autoconf, automake and libtool instead of being manually configured. > One of the fe

Re: CentOS 4 Build Erro

Hello Damian, thanks for the report. * Damian Hess wrote on Fri, Jul 02, 2010 at 04:09:16PM CEST: > I'm trying to install libtool-2.2.8 on a CentOS 4.7 box for another > piece of software that requires libtool, however when I run make I get > the following error: > > /bin/sh ./libtool --tag=CC  

[sr #107416] relink with a DESTDIR install mistakenly links against old installed libraries rather than those in DESTDIR

Update of sr #107416 (project libtool): Severity: 3 - Normal => 4 - Important ___ Follow-up Comment #1: Yes it is a real problem and it is a Libtool bug. If you already have a testcase handy, please

Re: Issues w/ "relink" and cross-compilation

Hello Philip, thanks for the reports. * Philip Prindeville wrote on Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 02:38:28AM CEST: > The problem is that a lot of projects that we use in turn use > libtool (and not always terribly up-to-date versions of it), this is something I'm afraid you need to take up with the proje

Re: [PATCH] updating homepage with current version and other minor fixes

Hi Carlo, * Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 01:27:00AM CEST: > The following patch updates the main libtool page to reflect the new version > released and correct some minor typo and link. installed. Thank you! Cheers, Ralf _

Re: libtool documentation missing Index.html

Hello Carlo, * Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:37:15AM CEST: > As can be seen by clicking on the HTML or HTML compressed (gzip tar) links > in : > > http://www.gnu.org/software/libtool/manual/ > > funny enough is not a bug on gendocs.sh or the documentation itself

Re: libtool documentation missing Index.html

* Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:34:55AM CEST: > On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 07:13:03AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote on Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:37:15AM CEST: > > > As can be seen by clicking on the HTML or HTML co

Re: z/OS

Hi Alon, * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 04:48:22PM CEST: > Does anyone has experience with libtool at z/OS open edition? > It builds static libraries, but it does not know how to build shared objects. AFAICS Libtool does not support z/OS yet, which means only static libraries can be

Re: z/OS

Hi Howard, * Howard Chu wrote on Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 06:51:30AM CEST: > > The z/OS linker has two operating modes, old style and XPLINK. I > seem to recall that you can only create DLLs using XPLINK. This has > some complications because XPLINK throws all object files into a > single namespace;

darwin access

Hello, my access to a darwin system has gone; is there anybody with a darwin system willing to give me ssh access to a system to use for autotools portability testing? Please answer off-list, Reply-To: set. Thanks, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailma

Re: Linking problem building iconv on Solaris x86

* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:07:28PM CEST: > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/attachment/ticket/9718/iconv-1.13.1.p2.log Does it work if you run this command manually, i.e., the failing link but without -no-undefined? /bin/bash ../libtool --mode=link gcc -m64 -fvisibilit

Re: Linking problem building iconv on Solaris x86

Hello David, * Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:48:25PM CEST: > On 08/10/10 09:28 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >/bin/bash ../libtool --mode=link gcc -m64 -fvisibility=hidden -o > >libiconv.la -rpath /home/drkirkby/fulvia/64/sage-4.5.3.alpha0/local/lib > &g

Re: Linking problem building iconv on Solaris x86

* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 11:33:36PM CEST: > On 08/10/10 10:10 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 10:48:25PM CEST: > >>(sage subshell) fulvia:lib drkirkby$ /bin/bash ../libtool > >>--mode=link gcc

Re: Linking problem building iconv on Solaris x86

* Dr. David Kirkby wrote on Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 11:30:25AM CEST: > On 08/11/10 05:33 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >Can you try removing that from the archive_cmds and archive_expsyms_cmds > >variable settings in the first 150 lines of the generated libtool script > >and se

Re: Building modules on AIX

Hi Daniel, * Daniel Sands wrote on Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 07:16:04PM CEST: > I'm using 2.2.10. > > Didn't Libtool once have the behavior on AIX that if -module was > specified, it wouldn't wrap the .so in a .a archive? I'm on the run right now, so can't really confirm that this wasn't ever the cas

Re: Building modules on AIX

Hello Daniel, please don't top-post, thank you! * Daniel Sands wrote on Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 08:11:01PM CEST: > Yeah I'm just trying to avoid the RTL because it sometimes gums up the > works. APR started with -brtl and it caused a bunch of headaches trying > to make that work--it built both the

Re: linux to windows cross compile af a dll

Hello, * Eric Blake wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:47:51PM CEST: > On 08/24/2010 10:42 AM, Joost Kraaijeveld wrote: > >*** Since this library must not contain undefined symbols, > >*** because either the platform does not support them or > >*** it was explicitly requested with -no-undefined, > >

Re: Link Time Optimization

Hello David, * David wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:32:22PM CEST: > I've been searching mailing list for supporting -flto in libtool, and seen > several (commited?) patches. not yet committed, unfortunately; I had hoped for feedback from a person knowledgeable with WinCE, but that didn't happe

Re: Link Time Optimization

Hello Vincent, * Vincent Torri wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 07:09:18PM CEST: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > >* David wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:32:22PM CEST: > >>I've been searching mailing list for supporting -flto in libtool, and seen >

Re: Link Time Optimization

Vincent, what about the other question I asked: * Vincent Torri wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:25:12PM CEST: > >I Cc:ed you on the thread, was that wrong? How can we reach you? Please answer this. Without somebody to ask about WinCE we *can* *not* support it. > >http://thread.gmane.org/gmane

Re: Link Time Optimization

* Vincent Torri wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 09:23:26PM CEST: > On Tue, 24 Aug 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Vincent Torri wrote on Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 08:25:12PM CEST: > >>>I Cc:ed you on the thread, was that wrong? How can we reach you? > > > >Please answ

Re: Link Time Optimization

* David wrote on Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 04:31:08AM CEST: > Instead of relying in only one person and possibly waiting for his response, > how about to start supporting it in all other arches and disabling it on > untested arches like WinCE? That's not the point. The question was for some reorgani

Re: problem with mingw-w64 and libraries like libole32.a

* Vincent Torri wrote on Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 06:46:31AM CEST: > I checked out libtool git 2 days ago and try to compile a library > that uses libole32 or libws2_32 with mingw-w64 (cross compilation on > linux). I get the usual message: > > *** Warning: linker path does not have real file for libr

Re: Linking problem building iconv on Solaris x86

For others looking at the same issue: We hashed this issue out off-list, using configure CC='gcc -m64' works, just configure CFLAGS=-m64 fails. Cheers, Ralf ___ http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool

Re: GNU Libtool 2.2.8 released (stable)

Hello Adam, * Adam Mercer wrote on Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 08:44:59PM CEST: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 15:44, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >  - Initial support for the Cuda Compiler Driver on GNU/Linux. > > Is there any documentation for this anywhere, I can't find anything in > the online manual nor inf

Re: libtool and Cuda

Hi Adam, * Adam Mercer wrote on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 08:28:43PM CEST: > I was just wondering what is available as about 18 months ago we added > some Cuda code to one of our projects and have found that the build > isn't working with more recent versions of Cuda. We have rules such as > the follow

Re: libtool and Cuda

[ adding automake-patches, replies can drop libtool@ ] * Adam Mercer wrote on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 09:03:53PM CEST: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 13:44, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: [ automake support for cuda ] > > I'd love to have this, and there has been a patch for this, too > >

Re: Anything remaining to hold up the August release I promised?

Hello Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 10:00:20PM CEST: > Unless there are any unmerged patches or unresolved issues to bring to > my attention, I'll make a new libtool release from the HEAD of master > branch this coming weekend (September 5th). I haven't pushed the new smal

Re: Anything remaining to hold up the August release I promised?

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 10:39:18PM CEST: > I don't have time either until Sunday at the earliest. I don't either. So please let's move this a week or two off. Peter and Charles have several remaining patches too. All bored devs can look at autobuild logs and fix regression

Re: Anything remaining to hold up the August release I promised?

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:45:02PM CEST: > On Wed, 1 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 10:00:20PM CEST: > >>Unless there are any unmerged patches or unresolved issues to bring to > >>my

Re: Anything remaining to hold up the August release I promised?

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 08:59:25PM CEST: > On Thu, 2 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >Can you try out the patch series, ideally on something other than > >GNU/Linux? If it helps you, I can push the branch I have it on. > > First I woul

Re: Installing libtool 1.5 and 2.2.6a on Linux at the same time

Hello Yersinia, * yersinia wrote on Mon, Sep 06, 2010 at 06:00:40PM CEST: > A question probably banal so i apologize in advance but i have not > found any clue. It's not a trivial question at all. > I'm trying to install on Linux(RHEL5) at the same time, as you can do > with automake and autoco

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: > I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. Great! > If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, > please speak up now! I don't know of any confirmed regression that we have an

Re: module libposix

Hi Bruce, * Bruce Korb wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 12:00:37AM CEST: > I seem to be missing something and can't quite figure it out. > > I get these messages during autoreconf: > > >>build_libposix> autoreconf > >configure.ac:29: required file `build-aux/ltmain.sh' not found Use -i to have thi

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

> * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 06:03:19AM CEST: > > I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, > > please speak up now! Rainer just confirmed a regression in this thread:

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 05:45:45PM CEST: > Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing > still quits part-way through with some sort of make-related issue > (as reported in detail previously). I don't have that previous report on my radar. C

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 08:45:08PM CEST: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 05:45:45PM CEST: > >>Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing > >>still quits part

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 09:27:08PM CEST: > On Sun, 19 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>The above is produced today after re-installing MinGW/GCC using the > >>latest TDM GCC installer (with GCC 4.5.1). It is similar to what I > >>observe

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:20:17PM CEST: > On 19 Sep 2010, at 18:14, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > Rainer just confirmed a regression in this thread: > > <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-libtool/2010-09/msg00032.html> > > (his latest mes

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Eric, * Eric Blake wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 06:35:21PM CEST: > On 09/18/2010 10:03 PM, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: > >I'm planning to make the belated 2.4 release in about 24 hours. > > > >If there is any reason you'd like me to hold off for a bit longer, > >please speak up now! > > Can we shi

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Charles Wilson wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 01:39:38AM CEST: > On 9/19/2010 12:57 PM, Charles Wilson wrote: > > On 9/19/2010 11:45 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote: > >> Unfortunately, my MinGW testing is not so successful. The testing still > >> quits part-way through with some sort of make-related i

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 07:53:15PM CEST: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2010, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > > >I'd really appreciate if you guys could send build logs to the autobuild > >server as I've been doing lately, much more than just posting > >

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

Hi Gary, * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 02:17:34AM CEST: > On Sep 20, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 01:20:17PM CEST: > >> On 19 Sep 2010, at 18:14, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >>> <http

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 03:21:55AM CEST: > On 22 Sep 2010, at 05:02, Charles Wilson wrote: > > Peter Rosin wrote: > >> Just a friendly ping, but only just now I pushed a change to the > >> 'compile' script in automake and would like the new version in > >> the release if it'

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Charles Wilson wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:10:39AM CEST: > On 9/20/2010 1:41 PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > I'd really appreciate if you guys could send build logs to the autobuild > > server... > > Here's what I use, more or less, to create the logs: >

Re: 2.4 Release in 24hrs

* Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 06:42:53AM CEST: > > On 22 Sep 2010, at 11:29, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > You should not need to use git Automake for this, and please don't, > > because it currently carries a small regression over 1.11.1. > > Ah, okay

autobuild results (was: 2.4 Release in 24hrs)

Hi Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 08:54:43AM CEST: > Den 2010-09-20 19:41 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > > I'd really appreciate if you guys could send build logs to the autobuild > > server as I've been doing lately, much more than just posting > >

Re: Autoconf tests, libtool symlist files, undefined behavior, and LTO

Hello t7, * t66...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 03:01:31AM CEST: > I don't know if my problem suites this description. No, it doesn't. > Currently installed libtool on this system is, > ltmain.sh (GNU libtool) 2.2.6b > > I recently tested the LTO feature of GCC (targeting windows

Re: Multi lib 32 bits support

Hello t7, please consider using the bug-libtool list for bug reports and a real name for posting, that is considered friendly. Thanks. * t66...@gmail.com wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 11:11:34AM CEST: > The new released libtool 2.4 fixed my compilation problem while > linking a dll with code

Re: autobuild results

Good morning Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:40:48PM CEST: > Den 2010-09-23 20:05 skrev Ralf Wildenhues: > >> I have plans to soon mail output from the v2.4 tag with OPTIONS as > >> below on MSYS: > > *snip* > > > > That looks all fin

Re: bogus warning 'seems to be moved'

Hello Marco, thanks for the bug report. * Marco Atzeri wrote on Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 10:49:56AM CEST: > is this bogus warning avoidable in the next release ? > > libtool: link: warning: > `/usr/lib/gcc/i686-pc-cygwin/4.3.4/../../../libfontconfig.la' seems to be > moved > libtool: link: warnin

Re: GNU Libtool 2.4 released [stable]

Hello Alon, * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 10:53:36AM CEST: > > - Sysroot support. This allows you to build cross-compiled packages > > with the same prefix that will be used on the destination machine, > > and still find dependent libraries under the compiler's "sysroot". > > Withou

Libtool 2.4 and APR (was: GNU Libtool 2.4 released [stable], yet might not be an immediate) drop in replacement for version 2.2.10

Hello Kyle, please don't top-post, thanks. * Kyle Sallee wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 03:52:28PM CEST: > Also I noticed that httpd version 2.2.16 > failed compilation with libtool version 2.4 installed > Compile log looks like: > > found apr source: srclib/apr > found apr-util source: srclib/ap

Re: Inherited linker flags

Hello Sam, * Sam Varshavchik wrote on Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 05:57:43AM CEST: > By doing some experimenting, I found that that everything appears to > work nicely, if I put "-Wl,--undefined=Y" into liby.la's > inherited_linker_flags setting. This apparently carries no impact > when "sharedly" linkin

Re: Inherited linker flags

Sorry for the off-list post, but Sam's MTA doesn't like the one from my provider's: | Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mail.gmx.net. | I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. | This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. | | : | C

Re: GNU Libtool 2.4 released [stable]

Hello Alon, * Alon Bar-Lev wrote on Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 03:41:36PM CEST: > On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > >> Also, why not take the value of the sysroot from the DESTDIR automake > >> variable? > > > > Because we know DESTDIR far too

Re: bindir.at takes forever.

Hi Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 02:28:48PM CEST: > I have been looking at the loops in tests/bindir.at and I see > this: bindir.at has several problems. First, the first AT_SETUP/.../AT_CLEANUP is completely redundant, it can just be removed. Then, the actual tests are bro

Re: libtool 2.2.10: What is the correct library naming convention

Hello Joost, * Joost Kraaijeveld wrote on Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:46:09PM CEST: > I have asked this question before, but I got no answer. If I asked it > the wrong or impolite way: sorry and please forgive me. No, it's simply that we don't have the manpower to address all bug reports in a timely

Re: libtool and LTO

Hello Andi, Bob, * Bob Friesenhahn wrote on Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 12:30:51AM CEST: > On Mon, 4 Oct 2010, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >I discovered that libtool breaks gcc LTO (link time optimization) > > > >Is there a solution or a workaround known? > > > >I'm using libtool 2.2.6b > > Maybe you should

Re: Unwanted shared runtime libraries getting added

Hello Ethan, * Ethan Mallove wrote on Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:42:53PM CEST: > I'm trying to create a library which has no shared library > dependencies using the Intel compilers, but it appears Libtool might > be automatically adding in some -lfoo flags that are forcing the > issue. How can I tel

Re: Unwanted shared runtime libraries getting added

* Ethan Mallove wrote on Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 07:26:45PM CEST: > On Fri, Oct/08/2010 07:14:18PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Ethan Mallove wrote on Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 02:42:53PM CEST: > > > I'm trying to create a library which has no shared library > > > depend

Re: somewhat misleading -no-undefined documentation

ke Simon's patch you referenced (wow, that's old!), so how about this patch which takes from both your suggestions? (I'm attributing this to Simon because he got it started, for lack of a better way to specify multiple authors in a git commit.) Thanks, Ralf 2010-10-09 Simon Josefsson

Re: LT_INIT pic-only not setting --with-pic

Hi Luke, * Luke Mewburn wrote on Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 05:52:16AM CEST: > I'm using libtool (and the other autotools) to build an installed > static library (which I don't want it as a shared library), > which I link into various other applications. > > I sometimes need to link this static library

Re: Unwanted shared runtime libraries getting added

Hello Ethan, * Ethan Mallove wrote on Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 01:59:20PM CEST: > On Fri, Oct/08/2010 02:24:26PM, Robert Boehne wrote: > >I think the mode=compile line doesn't tell us much about what happens > > when > >mode=link - post what you get on the "libtool --mode=link" command. > >

Re: Unwanted shared runtime libraries getting added

* Ethan Mallove wrote on Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 08:11:19PM CEST: > On Mon, Oct/11/2010 07:51:20PM, Ralf Wildenhues wrote: > > * Ethan Mallove wrote on Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 01:59:20PM CEST: > > > $ /bin/sh ../../../libtool --tag=CXX --mode=link icpc -O3 -DNDEBUG > > &g

Re: [RFC] w32 and Libtool.

Hi Peter, * Peter Rosin wrote on Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:19:27PM CEST: > Can you spot any errors? See below. I've only checked for things obvious to me; I hope somebody else verifies the w32 semantics and details. ;-) Thanks for writing this! > (I have not actually tested the code samples. Ye

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >