[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 18 19 64 failed [Solaris 7 SPARC]

From: Peter O'Gorman
Subject: Re: [libtool 2.2] testsuite: 18 19 64 failed [Solaris 7 SPARC]
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 23:42:13 -0600
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20071115)

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 look
>>> into 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?  Will
> this 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?

Peter O'Gorman

reply via email to

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