[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: compile problem
From: |
Alexandre Duret-Lutz |
Subject: |
Re: compile problem |
Date: |
20 Sep 2004 17:46:09 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/21.3.50 |
>>> "Gary" == Gary V Vaughan <address@hidden> writes:
Gary> But for a project built with `make -j', we still need AM_PROG_CC_C_O
Gary> and _LT_COMPILER_C_O to understand each others' locks :-(
Seems so. I thought it was not needed because when
AM_PROG_CC_C_O decides `compile' is required, it is also used
when compiling libtool objects. However perhaps I was wrong,
because `compile' does something only for *.o and *.obj files,
it is a no-op for *.lo files.
Maybe we need to tell AM_PROG_CC_C_O about *.lo files.
To makes matter worse, because AM_PROG_CC_C_O horribly
overwrites CC, it's not clear to me whether
AM_PROG_CC_C_O
LT_INIT
is equivalent to
LT_INIT
AM_PROG_CC_C_O
It looks like Libtool's `-c -o' check would not give the same
answer. I haven't dug all this; I think Ralf W sent some mail
about it, but I haven't flushed all my mails yet.
I agree it would be better to set down a common lock scheme,
although that really should not hold any release.
--
Alexandre Duret-Lutz
- Re: compile problem, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/09/07
- Re: compile problem, Gary V . Vaughan, 2004/09/07
- Re: compile problem, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/09/08
- Re: compile problem, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/09/10
- Re: compile problem, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/09/10
- Re: compile problem, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/09/10
- Re: compile problem, Bob Friesenhahn, 2004/09/10
- Re: compile problem, Alexandre Duret-Lutz, 2004/09/20
- Re: compile problem, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/09/21
- Re: compile problem,
Alexandre Duret-Lutz <=
- Re: compile problem, Ralf Wildenhues, 2004/09/20
- Re: compile problem, Gary V. Vaughan, 2004/09/21
Re: compile problem, Gary V . Vaughan, 2004/09/08