emacs-bug-tracker
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[debbugs-tracker] bug#9535: closed (sunpro and -library=stdcxx4)


From: GNU bug Tracking System
Subject: [debbugs-tracker] bug#9535: closed (sunpro and -library=stdcxx4)
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:54:02 +0000

Your message dated Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:53:24 +0000
with message-id <address@hidden>
and subject line Re: bug#9535: sunpro and -library=stdcxx4
has caused the debbugs.gnu.org bug report #9535,
regarding sunpro and -library=stdcxx4
to be marked as done.

(If you believe you have received this mail in error, please contact
address@hidden)


-- 
9535: http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=9535
GNU Bug Tracking System
Contact address@hidden with problems
--- Begin Message --- Subject: sunpro and -library=stdcxx4 Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:19:02 +0200 (CEST) User-agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Hello,

there was a commit in 2006 to support the sunpro option -library=stlport4:

2006-08-01  Albert Chin <address@hidden>

        * libltdl/m4/libtool.m4 (_LT_SYS_HIDDEN_LIBDEPS) [ solaris ]:
        Don't set $postdeps to "-lCstd -lCrun" if
        "-library=stlport4" set in CXXFLAGS as stlport4 C++
        library incompatible with Cstd C++ library. Use
        '-library=Cstd -library=Crun' instead of '-lCstd -lCrun'.


This compiler now also supports one more alternative (solaris-only): -library=stdcxx4
I assume it should receive the same treatment as -library=stlport4 ?

--
Marc Glisse



--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- Subject: Re: bug#9535: sunpro and -library=stdcxx4 Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 18:53:24 +0000
Hi Marc,

> On Dec 12, 2014, at 3:56 PM, Marc Glisse <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2014, Gary V. Vaughan wrote:
> 
>> I applied this just now:
>> 
>>  
>> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git/commit/?id=b49ab52cb34a80aacf88698870649c7761e17c65
> 
> Thanks.
> 
>> It doesn't change the logic of the 2006 patch, but it still seems wrong to 
>> me actually.
> 
> To me as well, but it seemed more likely to work if I only suggested a small 
> change ;-)

True enough.

Here's a better one given that you confirmed my fears of the original being 
brain damaged:

   
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/libtool.git/commit/?id=97f03a437983f106e41de45a0d1baf5a3ec5f04d

Cheers,
-- 
Gary V. Vaughan (gary AT gnu DOT org)

--- End Message ---

reply via email to

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