This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask at sygehus dot dk>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2007 12:52:52 +0100
- Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- References: <474C9B33.email@example.com> <474C9CBD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <474D943C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20071128210420.GH17368@sygehus.dk> <474DF7E4.email@example.com> <20071130181424.GO17368@sygehus.dk> <4750559E.firstname.lastname@example.org> <20071130211005.GQ17368@sygehus.dk> <email@example.com>
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:48:20AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > That's the --cache-file option, except for clobbering the file. I'll see
> > if I can arrange for the toplevel Makefile to copy a pre-made config.cache
> > into target library build directories just before running configure. That
> > ought to deal with all AC_FUNC(S) macros. That leaves just symbol versioning
> > and AC_LIBTOOL_DLOPEN, which is manageble.
> I've lost track of whether we're still talking about what to do for 4.3,
> or whether we're talking about future directions. So: are we considering
> this for 4.3, or for 4.4+?
I'll post a patch to implement the --cache-file trick just as soon as I
figure out why the $with_newlib variable is lost sometime before configuring
libgfortran, because it seems to basicly work apart from that. Then we can
decide for 4.3 or 4.4.
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
Danish law requires addresses in e-mail to be logged and stored for a year