[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers
From: |
Albert Chin |
Subject: |
Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:00:35 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.2.5i |
On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 10:43:54AM -0600, Robert Boehne wrote:
> Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 24 Oct 2002, Robert Boehne wrote:
> > > <SNIP>
> > > Hmmm, what does this code actually do for us?
> >
> > I wondered that myself.
> >
> > > What would you all say to a patch that prints an
> > > error if the mode isn't specified?
> >
> > That would be fine by me.
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> All right then, here it is. This patch replaces the guessing
> of operation mode with an error message, and removes the variable
> default_mode as it is no longer used.
>
> Ok to commit?
This means that people upgrading from 1.3.x or 1.4.x to 1.5.x will
have to retool how they invoke libtool. Do we really want to do this?
--
albert chin (address@hidden)
- patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Ossama Othman, 2002/10/24
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Bob Friesenhahn, 2002/10/24
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Robert Boehne, 2002/10/24
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Bob Friesenhahn, 2002/10/24
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Robert Boehne, 2002/10/27
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers,
Albert Chin <=
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Bob Friesenhahn, 2002/10/27
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Robert Boehne, 2002/10/27
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Robert Boehne, 2002/10/28
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Bob Friesenhahn, 2002/10/28
- Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers, Bob Friesenhahn, 2002/10/27