This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
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: <474C9B33.8060503@t-online.de> <474C9CBD.2070708@codesourcery.com> <87fxyqdc45.fsf@firetop.home> <474D943C.4030106@codesourcery.com> <20071128210420.GH17368@sygehus.dk> <474DF7E4.6050308@codesourcery.com> <20071130181424.GO17368@sygehus.dk> <4750559E.2090800@codesourcery.com> <20071130211005.GQ17368@sygehus.dk> <87d4tqu4nv.fsf@firetop.home>
On Sat, Dec 01, 2007 at 09:48:20AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask@sygehus.dk> 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