[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Auto(conf|make) style questions

From: tomas
Subject: Re: Auto(conf|make) style questions
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2003 09:32:32 +0100
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.28i

On Fri, Mar 21, 2003 at 09:17:17PM +0100, Alexandre Duret-Lutz wrote:
> >>> "tomas" == tomas  <address@hidden> writes:
> [...]
>  >> NEON_COMPAT="$NEON_COMPAT scm_c_string2str.lo"
>  tomas>                                       ^^^^       EEEK! ;-)
> [...]
>  tomas> If I understand the configury documentation correctly -- isn't using
>  tomas> explicit dynamic object endings a ``Don't Do That?'' and exactly what
>  tomas> $(LIBOBJS) or $(LTLIBOBJS) is supposed to handle for you? For .lo is
>  tomas> platform specific...
> No.  `.lo' is portable.  What wasn't portable in the way people used
> to define LTLIBOBJS from LIBOBJS was the hardcoding of `.o'.

Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks a lot for the clarification. Then your suggestion
makes indeed a lot of sense.

-- tomas

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]