[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Autoconf Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4
|
From: |
Alik Lee |
|
Subject: |
RE: Autoconf Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4 |
|
Date: |
Tue, 07 Mar 2006 02:05:28 +0000 |
sorry,but it's interrupted,because i am not sure of what you are
discussed with,
With over 20 years experiences in the security industry, we have
consolidated and integrated the good virtue of wired/wireless alarm
system,surveillance equipments and video door phone,access control system,
burglarproof system,anti-intruder system,etc Shenzhen Security Group
Co., Ltd. Has already become the biggest manufacturing base of safe and
security products in China.
Our plant covers 84300 square-meters and with 6300 workers running at
the corner. under ISO9000,we introduce our products with the most
reliable and advanced technology,facilited with effective production
streamlines and tranning staff, to ensure high quality,low cost.
Shenzhen Security Group Co., Ltd has obtained the authentication of
CCC and CE. at the end of 2005, our products have been exported to 107
countries and we have successfully developed 32 projects for oversea
market on the basis of OEM/ODM service.
Since we count on long term business partnerships Shenzhen Security Group
Co.,
Ltd.deserves its good reputation for its outstanding quality and
overwhelming
services for the security industry. We believe in that the success of an
enterprise results in a peace and safe of high life. our Aim is "the trust
from
customers,the satisfactory from dealers". welcome to be our brands"
SHENAN","JY"
series agent worldwide.
B.Regards,
Eric Lee
new product announce:
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/HTS-chinasecuritygroup
IM: address@hidden
Shenzhen Security Group Co.,Ltd
shenzhen jinhuicong science&tec. co.,ltd
Fax:+86-755-26780681
Add:7/f,ZhongLian Science&Tec. Building,Gaofa Industrial Zone,Shenzhen, PRC
From: address@hidden
Reply-To: address@hidden
To: address@hidden
Subject: Autoconf Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4
Date: 4 Mar 2006 20:43:12 -0800
Send Autoconf mailing list submissions to
address@hidden
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
address@hidden
You can reach the person managing the list at
address@hidden
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Autoconf digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks (Paul Eggert)
2. Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks (Rafael Rivera Jr.)
3. Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks (Paul Eggert)
4. Re: configure problems with the C for AIX compiler and
AIXV5.x (Stewart Dean)
5. Re: check for readline (Ralf Wildenhues)
6. Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks (Ralf Wildenhues)
7. Re: check for readline (Ralf Wildenhues)
8. Re: configure script question ? (June Fang)
9. configure script question ? (June Fang)
10. Fwd: for VAR; do does not work any more on some platforms
(Eric Blake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 22:13:58 +0330
From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks
To: "Rafael Rivera Jr." <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Rafael Rivera Jr." <address@hidden> writes:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't autoconf read in the
> configure.ac and spit out the configure script?
Yes, but it also reads other files.
> The configure.ac for the gettext package has no references to this
> code.
But other files do, and autoconf reads these other files.
It looks to me like the problem came from files imported from libtool,
so you should be reporting the problem to the libtool folks.
> PS - How did you get this mail? I'm, for some reason, not receiving
> mail from the listman.
Sorry, I don't know. Email has been erratic from mail.gnu.org for the
last few days.
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:08:30 -0500
From: "Rafael Rivera Jr." <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks
To: Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden, address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Ralf,
Thanks for the libtool pointer. I have CCed the proper list but intend
on removing address@hidden in future replies.
On SkyOS (and cross-compiling tools for SkyOS on Cygwin), libsky gets
implicitly linked but because we failed this check, -lc is getting added
( archive_cmds_need_lc=yes ) which bombs in the linking stages.
Maybe I'm confused, but it looks like this code is trying to determine
whether or not -lc exists. If this is the case, it looks like the logic
is backwards because grep returns an error code of 1. Again, maybe I'm
just confused.
Thanks,
Rafael
Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
>
> * Rivera, R wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 08:38:34PM CET:
>
>> New to this list. It seems the logic behind determining whether or not
>>
> libc
>
>> should be explicitly linked is backwards (in a generated configure
>>
> script).
>
> This is a Libtool question, and as such would've fit better on one of
> its mailing lists. I understand though that this is difficult to see.
> ;-)
>
>
>> The grep command in...
>>
>> (eval $archive_cmds 2\>\&1 \| grep \" -lc \" \>/dev/null 2\>\&1) 2>&5
>>
>> ... returns a value of 1 if the string is not found. Looking a few
>>
> lines
>
>> down, you'll find...
>>
>> (exit $ac_status);
>>
>> ... which fails the condition test and turns on explicit linking. As
>>
> one
>
>> cannot assume grep has a -v option, I would think the
>> 'archive_cmds_need_lc=no' and 'archive_cmds_need_lc=yes' statements
>>
> are
>
>> backwards.
>>
>> Does that make sense? Is this a problem with my logic or autoconf's
>>
> logic?
>
> There is a comment a few lines above:
>
> # Test whether the compiler implicitly links with -lc since on
> some
> # systems, -lgcc has to come before -lc. If gcc already passes
-lc
> # to ld, don't add -lc before -lgcc.
>
> This is what the test is supposed to achieve. First of all, the code
is
> not triggered at all if archive_cmds_need_lc has been set to 'no'
> before.
>
> What system are you on? What does archive_cmds_need_lc get set to and
> what would you expect instead?
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 22:00:29 -0800
From: Paul Eggert <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks
To: "Rivera, R" <address@hidden>
Cc: "'address@hidden'" <address@hidden>
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
"Rivera, R" <address@hidden> writes:
> (eval $archive_cmds 2\>\&1 \| grep \" -lc \" \>/dev/null 2\>\&1) 2>&5
That doesn't appear to be Autoconf code; most likely it was in some of
the macros or the configure.ac file of the package you're looking at,
and Autoconf simply copied the code into "configure". If so, you
should probably direct your question to the maintainers of the package
containing the "configure" command, not to the Autoconf mailing lists.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 12:35:40 -0500
From: Stewart Dean <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: configure problems with the C for AIX compiler and
AIXV5.x
Cc: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
I want to thank one and all who responded to my post and patiently
enlightened my ignorance. I think most of what I said was inapplicable
because of my misunderstanding of how autoconf works. The one thing I
think might be improved/corrected would be to include /usr/include/jfs
as the location of quota.h in the default distribution configure.in
autoconf macro AC_CHECK_HEADERS.
Thank You, thank you, thank you.
--
====
Stewart Dean, Unix System Admin, Henderson Computer Resources
Center of Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, New York 12504
address@hidden voice: 845-758-7475, fax: 845-758-7035
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 23:18:53 +0100
From: Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: check for readline
To: Matthias Langer <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Matthias,
* Matthias Langer wrote on Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:11:59AM CET:
> What is the suggested way to check for the existence of readline ?
> Should i use the macro from http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ or is
there
> a better approach ?
You could also try the gnulib module readline (including dependent
modules). I have not compared the two.
Cheers,
Ralf
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 17:53:00 +0100
From: Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: 2.59 and Explicit libc linking checks
To: "Rivera, R" <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi Rafael,
* Rivera, R wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 08:38:34PM CET:
>
> New to this list. It seems the logic behind determining whether or not
libc
> should be explicitly linked is backwards (in a generated configure
script).
This is a Libtool question, and as such would've fit better on one of
its mailing lists. I understand though that this is difficult to see.
;-)
> The grep command in...
>
> (eval $archive_cmds 2\>\&1 \| grep \" -lc \" \>/dev/null 2\>\&1) 2>&5
>
> ... returns a value of 1 if the string is not found. Looking a few
lines
> down, you'll find...
>
> (exit $ac_status);
>
> ... which fails the condition test and turns on explicit linking. As
one
> cannot assume grep has a -v option, I would think the
> 'archive_cmds_need_lc=no' and 'archive_cmds_need_lc=yes' statements are
> backwards.
>
> Does that make sense? Is this a problem with my logic or autoconf's
logic?
There is a comment a few lines above:
# Test whether the compiler implicitly links with -lc since on some
# systems, -lgcc has to come before -lc. If gcc already passes -lc
# to ld, don't add -lc before -lgcc.
This is what the test is supposed to achieve. First of all, the code is
not triggered at all if archive_cmds_need_lc has been set to 'no' before.
What system are you on? What does archive_cmds_need_lc get set to and
what would you expect instead?
Cheers,
Ralf
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 09:29:28 +0100
From: Ralf Wildenhues <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: check for readline
To: Matthias Langer <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
* Matthias Langer wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2006 at 02:07:41PM CET:
> On Sat, 2006-02-25 at 23:18 +0100, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> > * Matthias Langer wrote on Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 11:11:59AM CET:
> > > What is the suggested way to check for the existence of readline ?
> > > Should i use the macro from http://autoconf-archive.cryp.to/ or is
there
> > > a better approach ?
> >
> > You could also try the gnulib module readline (including dependent
> > modules). I have not compared the two.
>
> Thanks, i looked after that, but unfortunately the readline module in
> gnulib is very minimalistic:
I don't think the replacement module is used when an installed full
version of readline is found. So that may just be what you need.
Cheers,
Ralf
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:43:03 +0800
From: "June Fang" <address@hidden>
Subject: Re: configure script question ?
To: address@hidden
Message-ID:
<address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
and what's more, the entire lines:
15 if test -n "${ZSH_VERSION+set}" && (emulate sh) >/dev/null
2>&1; then
16 emulate sh
i guess it means execuate "emulate sh" in subshell, and
if it success, do it in our current shell ? am i right ?
On 2/24/06, June Fang <address@hidden> wrote:
> sorry in advance if stupid question, but i am a really new bie.
>
> i found the following shell script in the configure file of
autoconf-2.59
> but dose that means ?
> 15 if test -n "${ZSH_VERSION+set}" && (emulate sh) >/dev/null
2>&1; then
> 16 emulate sh
> 17 NULLCMD=:
> 18 # Zsh 3.x and 4.x performs word splitting on ${1+"$@"}, which
> 19 # is contrary to our usage. Disable this feature.
> 20 alias -g '${1+"$@"}'='"$@"'
> 21 elif test -n "${BASH_VERSION+set}" && (set -o posix)
> >/dev/null 2>&1; then
> 22 set -o posix
> 23 fi
>
> i know ${ZSH_VERSION} means variable substituting;
> and ${ZSH_VERSION:+set} means "If parameter is null or unset, nothing
> ~~ Note the `:`
> is substituted, otherwise the expansion of word is substituted."
> ---- from Bash reference manual
>
> but what dose ${ZSH_VERSION+set} without the `:` means ?
>
> thanks in advance.
>
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 23:26:38 +0800
From: "June Fang" <address@hidden>
Subject: configure script question ?
To: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
sorry in advance if stupid question, but i am a really new bie.
i found the following shell script in the configure file of autoconf-2.59
but dose that means ?
15 if test -n "${ZSH_VERSION+set}" && (emulate sh) >/dev/null 2>&1;
then
16 emulate sh
17 NULLCMD=:
18 # Zsh 3.x and 4.x performs word splitting on ${1+"$@"}, which
19 # is contrary to our usage. Disable this feature.
20 alias -g '${1+"$@"}'='"$@"'
21 elif test -n "${BASH_VERSION+set}" && (set -o posix)
>/dev/null 2>&1; then
22 set -o posix
23 fi
i know ${ZSH_VERSION} means variable substituting;
and ${ZSH_VERSION:+set} means "If parameter is null or unset, nothing
~~ Note the `:`
is substituted, otherwise the expansion of word is substituted."
---- from Bash reference manual
but what dose ${ZSH_VERSION+set} without the `:` means ?
thanks in advance.
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:46:35 -0700
From: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Subject: Fwd: for VAR; do does not work any more on some platforms
To: address@hidden
Message-ID: <address@hidden>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bash 3.1 currently violates POSIX in that 'for V ; ...' does not behave
like 'for V in "$@" ; ...'. As evidenced from this snippet of a report on
bug-bash, it affects autoconf. Should we document this in shell
limitations, and work around it, or just assume that a patch to bash 3.1
will be available soon?
==========
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: for VAR; do does not work any more on some platforms
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 11:20:23 +0000
From: bashbugreport-ta AT durchnull.de
To: bug-bash AT gnu.org
Bash Version: 3.1
Patch Level: 11
Release Status: release
Description:
In other shells (like bash 3.0, bash 2.x, zsh, dash),
for VARIABLE; do ...; done
is equivalent to
for VARIABLE in "$@"; do ...; done
GNU autoconf also relies on this fact at many points:
ac_prev=
for ac_option
do
# If the previous option needs an argument, assign it.
if test -n "$ac_prev"; then
eval "$ac_prev=\$ac_option"
ac_prev=
continue
fi
ac_optarg=`expr "x$ac_option" : 'x[^=]*=\(.*\)'`
- --
Life is short - so eat dessert first!
Eric Blake address@hidden
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin)
Comment: Public key at home.comcast.net/~ericblake/eblake.gpg
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFECjTr84KuGfSFAYARAmBPAJ9A7Vq0RJvf6xq+pTuLfm0d5rLwSQCfTcTj
uS6JJfDNkmsWG4Sl9yCqe0U=
=2ZnE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Autoconf mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
End of Autoconf Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4
***************************************
_________________________________________________________________
与世界各地的朋友进行交流，免费下载 MSN Messenger:
http://messenger.msn.com/cn
- RE: Autoconf Digest, Vol 23, Issue 4,
Alik Lee <=