|
From: | Gary V. Vaughan |
Subject: | Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 18 19 64 failed [Solaris 7 SPARC] |
Date: | Fri, 7 Mar 2008 01:07:13 -0500 |
Hi Peter, On 7 Mar 2008, at 00:42, Peter O'Gorman wrote:
Gary V. Vaughan wrote:On 6 Mar 2008, at 20:04, Peter O'Gorman wrote:Peter O'Gorman wrote:Nelson H. F. Beebe wrote:libtool: link: f90 -shared -Qoption ld --whole-archive ./.libs/liba1.a ./.libs/liba2.a -Qoption ld --no-whole-archive -Qoption ld -soname -Qoption ld liba12.so.0 -o .libs/liba12.so.0.0.0 /convenience.at:211: exit code was 1, expected 0 18. convenience.at:169: 18. FC convenience archives (convenience.at:169): FAILED (convenience.at:211)Libtool detected FC as f90, but otherwise used the gcc tools. I'll lookinto this.Because we generally use the same archive_cmds for F77, FC as for CXX, things can get a little messed up. This "fixes" the most common case, gcc, g++, g77/gfortran & some other fortran compiler, by pretending the"other fortran compiler" does not exist. Thoughts?What happens to a project written with gnu C and vendor fortran? Willthis test spot g++ and refuse to build the fortran files?Depends on if those fortran compilers have their own rules or if they are inheriting.Maybe we should look into tagging the archive_cmds instead.I did not see this mail til just now (after the commit). Want me to revert?
If you think it causes a regression... it seems to me that things are no worse than before, so I think leaving it is fine for now. A FIXME to look at a better
long term solution after we branch seems like a good idea tho' Cheers, Gary -- <=====. Email me: address@hidden / @ @ /| Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net \ \\ ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook \^^^^^^\\
PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |