[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers
From: |
Bob Friesenhahn |
Subject: |
Re: patch for "g++-x.x" named compilers |
Date: |
Sun, 27 Oct 2002 11:03:45 -0600 (CST) |
The patch looks good to me.
Bob
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, 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?
>
> 2002-10-27 Robert Boehne <address@hidden>
>
> * ltmain.in: Do not try to inferr mode of operation, error out
> with an appropriate message if --mode=MODE is not specified.
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
address@hidden
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen
- 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, 2002/10/27
- 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 <=